2010 elections!

http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/september2010lerner

Did I just hear someone refer to "traitors on Wall Street"? Maybe I shouldn't be wearing my Freudian Slippers.

I find the Rand Paul "Tea Party" "A-Paul-ing".

Information is power. Americans must start to use their brain. Use it or lose it!

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CBEN-7QNVB9?OpenDocument

In listening to Thom's interview with David Cay Johnston he finally left me the impression that his optimism for our hell-hole and rat-hole nation is waning. Thom is finally converting to reality.

Did I hear correctly? Did Michael Barone just declare himself an even-handed corporate wh@rə? How is slanting EVERYTHING towards the recessivist right being "even-handed"?

"Drifting Towards"?!?!? THOM! Dude, you gotta verb tense issue . . . A more accurate assessment would be:

Close to a third of Americans have mindlessly rushed into and wholly embrace Fascism as a preferred state of being.

" If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever." - George Orwell.

The difference between Orwell and the Teabaggers: Orwell was AGAINST it!

Let him who has eyes to see - see.

Let she who has ears to hear -- hear

That's it thanks. Great article.

$250,000 TORT-REFORM CAP WRONG:

I am a podcaster, and just listened to today's 1st hour. I want to correct a misapprehension you have about tort "reform":

You made the statement to the effect that, due to tort reform in Texas, the maximum recovery for a personal-injury medical-malpractice action is $250,000.

This is wrong: The $250,000 cap applies to exemplary ("punitive") damages, NOT to actual damages. (There's a $500,000 cap per event, in case there are more than 1 victim.) So that, in the example of the girl who's rendered disabled all her life, a recovery of her actual medical costs (usually given as a lump sum, according to the jury's discretion) is definitely possible; if the jury believes that it will take, say, $3 million to take care of her for the rest of her life, they can surely award it. What they cannot do is to say: "Well, you know what? We're going to assess a $20 million award just to show Pfizer they should be more careful when they put poisonous drugs on the market", which would serve to "punish the perpetrator for his actions, and warn others similarly situated against such behavior" (the legal justification for exemplary damages).

While not as bad as your example, this restriction does have real consequences, for several reasons:

1.) Large corporations (as in your Chevy-truck sidesaddle tank and Ford Pinto examples) can easily swallow actual damages, because those can be quantified and planned for, but punitive damages are a wildcard, and really serve to dampen tortious behavior; and

2.) In a state like Texas, where contingent-fee arrangements between attorney and client are permissible, the lawyer typically gets 40% of the recovery. This may seem like a lot, but considering the horrific costs to bring one of these suits (our office typically spends about $50,000+ per case), this arrangement is usually the only way an injured claimant can get representation; attorney fees and costs, if paid out-of-pocket, can easily run over a hundred thousand bucks (more on the reason for that--also due to tort "reform"--in a moment), and very few injured persons can afford that. The reason the punitive-damages limitation is important here is that, in a case where, say, the claimant "only" loses a finger or two (usually worth maybe a hundred thousand dollars or so), there simply isn't enough in the way of actual damages available to justify a lawyer fighting one of these huge corporations; the costs are simply too great. In the "old days" this wasn't so; not only was a case easier to get heard, but the chances were good that the jury would return a punitive-damages award which would make the case worth bringing. (This power is why the awards against such tortfeasors as Big Tobacco and Big Asbestos were so effective in correcting their predatory behavior; the juries not only awarded damages, but they justifiably "punished" the corporate criminals as well.)

And that brings us to the other part of tort "reform" (or "tort deform", as trial lawyers here call it): The "Robinson/Daubert" line of cases, and the recent recodification of medical-malpractice law, puts a huge series of very expensive hurdles in the way of bringing suit. Before you can even get a case to a jury, for example, an "expert report" has to be filed which requires the filling in of the "analytical gaps" between the tortious act and the injury. This requires at least one medical expert, and usually two or three; and each expert (licensed physicians required) usually costs around $10,000 for their assistance with this "report" (and at least that much more, if their testimony is later required at trial, i.e. if the case doesn't settle before that point). And what's worse is that the medical validity of this "report" is determined by a judge--not a doctor--who, in the age of Republican dominance of the bench, is often hostile to plaintiffs and the trial bar, and often will "kill" what would previously have been a jury-determinable case, before the jury can even have a chance to hear the claim. "Borderline" cases, or cases where the liability isn't crystal clear, are often destroyed at this point, even if there is plenty of good (though contestable) evidence that the tortious behavior actually occurred.

So: Tort "reform" is a bad thing, and has basically put out of business claimants who have less than a half-million dollars in actual damages. But if you do have such a case, then you can still get recovery, though usually, after deduction of attorney fees, less than you actually were harmed, since the difference can't be made up through "exemplaries".

Incidentally: I was licensed in Texas to practice law in the late '70's, and did so for 20 years before I lost my license due to a medical-marijuana arrest and imprisonment (5 years Federal prison). Since that time I've been working as a rather well-qualified "legal assistant", specializing in tort law, including medical-malpractice work, so I know whereof I speak ;-) ... ~ alamac

re: #11 spot on! up to the mid-'80's, the wives of professionals, like professors, doctors, etc put in a lot of volunteer work, often peace and justice work. beginning in the mid '80's, they also had full time jobs.