LOL this is classic.. The thought process of why being a trial lawyer is

[southernleftylady]

bad thing , from a righties point of view... I said "So we are against lawyers who fight for the little guy? and for only the ones who protect the big?"
______and this was the responce i got____________
"I'm saying lawyers who fight for the little guy end up hurting millions of other little guys because there are no regulations on them or the amount of extortion they can conduct, nor will there be if the democrats have their way. Frivolous lawsuits affect prices and jobs negatively.

You asked why a presidential candidate being a trial lawyer is a bad thing. Please point out all of the great things about having a president who is a trial lawyer to me if you want."

[displacedtexan]

1. They don't hate trial lawyers. They hate juries.

Trial lawyers don't decide punitive damages or sentences.

We, the people, are the jury members. As such, we know that there is little or no justice for the little guy; therefore, we seek to send a message through punitive damages.

Corporate pirates hate this, even though it's usually chump change for them. But, they feel like they have to complain publicly or face a PR nightmare... so they complain loudly and often (Whatever you do, don't throw me into the brier patch!)

Blaming the trial lawyer is easier than blaming the jury... PR-wise.

The reality is... They hate us.

[Ganja Ninja]

2. The best point about having a trial lawyer for President or VP is ...

Neither Bush or Cheney are trial lawyers.

I would ask whoever it is your talking to "What's the advantage of having two oil executives as President and VP?" So far the only people making out under Bush/Cheney are Halliburton executives and stock holders.

[markbark]

3. They Hate Trial Lawyers

for the same reasons most crooks hate cops.....

They make it harder to get away with the crimes they commit.

QED



--MAB

[Guaranteed]

4. Lawyers know the LAW, for one thing.

That's something that Cheney and Bush should look into.

[southernleftylady]

5. I stole a paragraph from you but this is what I wrote back

i don't think trial lawyers do all bad. some actually save lives. corporations number one motivator is money. if one of their products is hurting even killing people, they don't always stop making it. they don't warn people. because they're scared of losing money. so sometimes the only ones that stop the killing are trial lawyers. a couple examples... that car that would blow up when it got in an accident... forget hte name, pinto??? anyway people are driving around these cars, getting in accidents and going up in flames and the company KNEW it was happening but didn't stop until a trial lawyer made them. another example is that crib company.... began with a 'b' i forget, but their cribs were made poorly and babies were dying and they knew. they stopped making that particular crib but didn't put out a warning or tell people about it and there were tons of those cribs still out there. finally a trial lawyer brought attention to it with a lawsuit for a family who lost their child and forced the company to recall all the cribs, and saved the lives of more babies than if they hadn't done the lawsuit and forced the company to recall. sometimes the only thing that forces a corporation to be good is the knowledge that if a trial lawyer working for someone their product killed gets to them, they'll pay.
trial lawyers don't decide punitive damages or sentences. Jurys do!
We, the people, are the jury members. as such, we know that there is little or no justice for the little guy; therefore, we seek to send a message through punitive damages. but, i guess people feel like they have to complain publicly or face a PR nightmare... so they complain loudly and often
blaming the trial lawyer is easier than blaming the jury... PR-wise.

whether that affects the presidency... i don't think it does either way. but abe lincoln was a trial lawyer and he was good.

[southernleftylady]

6. and their reply again..

"I think it's just an easy way to attack him, since lawyers tend to be very unpopular in the US. Look how many anti-lawyer jokes there are. Saying, "He's a lawyer" is shorthand for "corrupt, money-grubbing ambulance-chaser."

I've read that Edwards primarily sued doctors for not performing enough c-sections or not performing them fast enough, blaming the lack of a timely section for the baby having cerebral palsy. To the best of my knowledge, there is no actual connection between vaginal birth and c-section. But now we have a 25% c-section rate (and still rising!) thanks to malpractice suits, so yay for the lawyers.

I also read part of a trial transcript that is being widely circulated in which Edwards "channels" the voice of the unborn baby. The obvious irony of him speaking for a fetus in trouble while supporting partial-birth abortion has been noted by everyone."

[southernleftylady]

7. and another reply...

"Where do I start. I live in one of the many states now facing a medical malpractice crisis due to the greed of plaintiff attorneys. They are not looking out for the little guy. When Jane Doe has a "bad" birth experience she calls her attorney and sues. The attorney moves the trial from county A to Philadelphia knowing the jury is more likely to pay a higher award in Philly. Jane Doe wins gives most of the award to her attorney, the doctors malpractice rates go through the roof and he moves to another state because he cannot afford the malpractice rates in PA. I am now without an OB/Gyn, Jane Doe has received a small sum and Joe Attorney has made out like a bandit.

This is example of why we need tort reform. I do not believe that John Edwards would ever support measures that would reign in frivolous lawsuits.

Frivolous lawsuits are one of the things that hurt our economy and our society. We need reform and it won't come from someone like Edwards."

[Bridget Burke]

8. You've really mastered all the "tort reform" talking points.

Guess you believe in them. Could you at least supply links to your sources?

(From a Texan who's seen just how much "tort reform" helps healthcare.)

[saigon68]

10. If the BUTCHER wasn't a Klutz

A jury of honest citizens wouldn't have sent the "WITCH DOCTOR" packing.

[drscm]

12. Doctors and Medical Insurance

The myth that lawsuits are the cause of high malpractice insurance costs is well supported BY the INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Texas and Florida have placed limits on awards to plaintiffs, yet the insurance rates continue to rise.

Why? Because insurance companies do not believe they should be penalized for bad investment decisions - the greatest reason for the increased costs of malpractice insurance. In addition, they certainly don't want to reduce the dividends to their stockholders nor compensation to the owner/management.

[Killarney]

14. I read a very compelling article

on cbsnews.com about this (how bad investments, not litigation rewards) are the main reason for high insurance premiums.

I wanted to find it for you, southernleftylady so you could use it in your argument with the rethug, but I can't find it.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. The malpractice thing is much to complex to argue...

with someone. It's a talking point, and rarely will anyone be convinced. I haven't seen a proper analysis anywhere because insurance company data is private, and everyone involved just points to a few anecdotal cases. The well-publicized anecdotal cases of amputating the wrong leg or leaving a clamp inside the patient should scare people more than what their doctor pays for insurance.

The key question is-- if your doctor screws up, what do you do about it?

One problem is the medical profession's inability to clean itself up. There are bad doctors out there and they should be stopped.

Another problem is that medicine is not an exact science. Doctors have to make decisions on diagnosis and treatment, and they often don't have clear options. When suggesting a course of treatment, they may have several options, and it is possible to choose the wrong one even with the best knowledge and intentions. In an emergency situation, like with surgery or birth where something unexpected happens, it may often be luck more than the doctor's skill that affects the outcome.

This, by the way, is why most malpractice suits are thrown out. There are more doctors out there willing to be paid as expert witnesses for the defense than for the plaintiff.

What's often missing is the malpractice insurance companies' part in this. While their claims data is secret, it's no secret tht most companies are looking for growth, and do stupid things to get it. Often ,they will manage to cut rates at the worst time, and forget underwriting standards. When the claims catch up to them, they either pull out or raise premiums and all hell breaks loose. Mutual liability pools have been tried, and worked for a while, but some fell apart when the growth syndrome hit the managers.

[Killarney]

9. I read a good article here

a few days ago about how tort reform is a load of crap, but now I can't find it. It was basically about how the right is trying to exaggerate things (like the McDonald's case) when the things they are saying aren't true. Maybe someone else here has it.

[GoBucksBeatBush]

15. as i recall...

there was more to the mcdonalds case than simply "lady put coffee in her lap while driving, spilled it, sued when she got burned, didn't take personal responsiblity for her decision" as the republinazis would have you believe. mcdonalds hung themselves on that one: they'd sent out memos predicting that a scalding of this nature was going to occur if their franchises didn't turn the temperature on the coffee pots down. all the franchises were instructed to do so, but not all followed the memos. open and shut case for the lawyer, actually...put the memos into evidence, and voila, mr and madam jury, how much is a burned vulva worth? mcdonalds lost not because they got screwed by a trial lawyer, but b/c they knew something was a very big potential problem, and did nothing (except put that concern in writing) about preventing the problem.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Good Grief!

I see that you've already answered, but should it come up again, not only was Lincoln a successful lawyer, John Adams was, too. Both Lincoln and Adams were accused of being shysters back in their day. Some things never change.

I'm sure there's a well-worn term for it in psychological circles, but while most people have not sued anyone, they are afraid of being sued. So, they transfer this fear to a dislike of lawyers.

The costs of being sued are publicized far more than the benefits of collecting damages owed. Some of the results of these suits are hated by some, particularly on the right. The courts have protected the rights of minorities, the poor, and others they dismiss, far more than the legislatures have.

It was a trial lawyer that won Brown v. Board of Ed, which was the single most important event in black rights struggles and overturning Jim Crow laws.

It was a trial lawyer who fought over Love Canal, and got the ball rolling for clean air and water.

It was a trial lawyer who got legal abortions.

It was a trial lawyer who got prayer out of the schools.


See why they REALLY hate lawyers?