A Conservative Analyzes Tort Law [View All]

[pdmike]

I'm sorry - I just can't pass this up. The following appeared on the Hannity Forum today:

Apparently some caller asked Rush if he had ever sued anyone and Rush said he couldn't remember. Someone posted this on the Hannity Forum and it elicited a number of responses, most of them critical of Rush for wimping out on his answer. The issue, of course, had to do with the conservative mistrust of the court system and anyone who uses it to resolve a dispute.

And then, here comes this CLASSIC response from one of our conservative friends in defense of Rush and also in condemnation of trial lawyers:

"This socialist was comparing apples to oranges.The distinction and debate is all about frivilous lawsuits by greasy lawyers with ridiculous crazy awards,like billions of dollars.

So what if Rush sued someone.The difference in litigation is suing to get back exactly what you lost,which is legitimate.John Edwards sues people right out of their jobs, breaks companies and destroys lives.Suing for one billion dollars and getting it because you decided to smoke is frivilous and just plain insane.You smoked,your fault.Take responsibility.

If my neighbour built a fence on my land and excavated,refused to move his stuff off my land I should be able to sue and make him pay for removal and legal fees. Not a billion dollare reward.Common sense.

Edwards used junk science to win massive awards for nothing.

There`s a common sense difference."

Let's see if I have this straight - it's OK for Rush to sue someone. Of course, we don't know who he was suing, or what the suit was about but, hey, if it's RUSH doing the suing, then it's gotta be OK.
Rush (the poster notes) only sues to get back exactly what he lost, "which is legitimate."

Edwards, on the other hand, is a horrendous villain, who used junk science to win massive awards for nothing.

Life is sure simple if you are on the right of it, isn't it?

pdmike