In the "can't make this up" category comes the case of former SC appointee and cultural critic Robert Bork. As you will see, he has long been (as many conservatives are) a critic of people suing over what he called "frivolous claims," and had lobbied to make that much harder to do.
Ok.
Now we find out that Bork is suing for a million dollars after he fell at the Yale Club while trying to give a speech.
See. Bush and Cheney bemoan government until it helps them hold power and gain more riches. Dick Cheney outs a CIA agent and is not only not impeached, but still has his job. Scooter Libby can perjure himself and obstruct justice, but when Bill Clinton did it, it was impeachable. Conservative pundit Robert Bork (what a horrible Supreme Court Justice he would have been) says that you and I should not be able to sue for damages, but he can.
Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?
6 comments:
They are perfectly consistent. Consistenty hypocrital idiots.
From what the article claimed, Bork had supported congressional power to regulate the state's tort laws. Is this the same thing as restricting 'frivilous claims' or not being able to sue. NPR interviewed some PI attorney from out east who said that Bork's lawsuit was standard boilerplate. From what I have seen of his claim, it looks weak.
FWIW, I am generally not a fan of tort reform. There are certainly abuses in tort law, but there are better ways of dealing with the problems.
Steve, help me out here. Sounds a little like Bork thinks that the state can restrict claims such as his, but he can still sue? For tort reform before he was against it?
I htought that Bork's position was that the feds, under the interstate commerce clause, could pass tort reform. I am unsure as to what kind of tort reform he favors.
IMO, most tort reform is worthless. Bush pushed tort reform in regards to med mal claims, such as caps on punitive damages, etc. to relieve the burden on physicians because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. From what I have read, the cost of malpractice insurance is the same in states with caps as it is in states without caps.
Steve, still sounds rather inconsistent to me. Most people who talk about tort reform, as you have discussed, want to reduce the very kinds of claims that Bork is perfectly willing to pursue on his own. I find it hard to believe that he thinks in some theoretical sense that the feds can pass tort reform, but thinks that is a bad idea.
Interesting note about the differences between states with caps and not. I am always interested to hear some conservatives (obviously not you) who trumpet the free market but then want to limit legal claims. If the government doesn't regulate (some of) these people, then how will the market force them to be good at their job?
It is possible that he is inconsistent. I just haven't heard him talk much about tort reform.
You are correct, in that there are some people that are pro-tort reform for others, but will gladly sue if they are injured. There are terrible abuses in the legal system that we all end up paying for in terms of higher insurance rates.
The challenge is to find a way to reduce weak claims, while protecting people with legitimate claims. From what little I know of med mal suits, the multi-million dollar wins go to people that have been seriously injured and genuinely deserve a big award. These claims are also rare. Far more common, are the claims that settle for a few thousand, based on a threat of a lawsuit that may be weak, but are cheaper to settle then to go to court.
Post a Comment