Why doesn't anyone care that Senate OKs Limit on Class Action Lawsuits?

[saracat]

We have lined up about election fraud and social Security but doesn't anyone consider this an issue? The Senate just voted our right to sue away and no one cares? What is wrong with everyone?

[papau]

1. ? - The bill moving class action to Federal Courts ?

?

:-(

[saracat]

2. Yes.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archi...

Senate OKs Limit on Class Action Lawsuits

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, February 10, 2005

(02-10) 12:48 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Senate on Thursday gave President Bush the first legislative victory of his second term by approving legislation to help shield businesses from major class action lawsuits.

Under the legislation, long sought by big business, large multistate class action lawsuits like the ones that have been brought against tobacco companies could no longer be heard in small state courts. Such courts have handed out multimillion-dollar verdicts.

Instead, the cases would be heard by federal judges, who have not proven as open to those type of lawsuits.

The Senate passed the bill 72-26. The House is expected to take it up next week and send it to President Bush for his signature.
..more..

[EVDebs]

13. True genius will find the loopholes. Hopefully this is Swiss cheese ! eom

[flpoljunkie]

3. It is a big issue. More from my post regarding this Bush triumph...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10cnd-class.html?ei=5094&en=e0125e897a6ac9f0&hp=&ex=1108098000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=

But critics of the bill have said it may effectively create an impossible situation for many plaintiffs, since federal courts are barred under a 1985 Supreme Court ruling from considering class actions in which there are "material" differences in the laws among the affected states.

Thus, the critics say, the law may create a "Catch-22" in which class-action plaintiffs find both federal and state courthouse doors locked.

"This bill is one of the most unfair, anticonsumer proposals to come before the Senate in years," Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the minority leader, said just before the vote. "It slams the courthouse doors on a wide range of injured plaintiffs." Many deserving cases will be dismissed, he predicted, and those that are not may have to go "to the back of a very long line in the overburdened federal court system."

<>Besides Senators Reid and Kennedy, the Democrats who voted no were Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barbara Boxer of California, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Patty Murray of Washington, Max Baucus of Montana, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Carl Levin of Michigan, Frank Lautenberg and Jon Corzine, both of New Jersey, Richard Durbin of Illinois, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka, both of Hawaii, Paul Sarbanes and Barbara Mikulski, both of Maryland, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Bill Nelson of Florida.

___________________

Dems voting for this business protection act were Bingaman, Cantwell, Carper, Conrad, Dodd, Feinstein, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson of Nebraska, Obama, Reed of Rhode Island, and Salazar.

[LittleClarkie]

9. Good for you, Senators!

26, not bad. Still need more.

[cosmicdot]

11. hope Harry did his best to get the Dems in line

18 ... that's a large number of defectors ... giving Bu$h**/corporate america a victory ... we're the party of the people, right?


Harry Reid said: "This bill is one of the most unfair, anticonsumer proposals to come before the Senate in years ... It slams the courthouse doors on a wide range of injured plaintiffs." Many deserving cases will be dismissed, he predicted, and those that are not may have to go "to the back of a very long line in the overburdened federal court system."

that's a strong statement to result in 18 Democratic Senators voting 'yea'

Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)

[CWebster]

15. Another strike against Obama

He is proving not to be a man of the people.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

4. Its HUGE

and we've all been GANNON GANNON GAY SEX all day :puke:


;(

disinformation keeps us distracted from the important suff going on

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Gannon is easier to wrap your head around

and as you said, it is SEX, and man on man sex, HUGE and easy to understand

now this one, or the fact that the bushies hid 9.11 material is NOT that easy to wrap your head around

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Its not that people don't care, it is just that we are quickly

reaching overload, and as I said the corporate types are singing hossanah and dancing a jig

[Itsthetruth]

6. Just A Guess

Because the Democratic Party as a political party didn't oppose that anti-consumer bill and some "liberal" Democrats in the Senate voted for it.

That's just speculation on my part. However, the Democratic Senate "opposition" to Bush's policies doesn't seem to be much of an opposition at all.

The Senate vote has certainly further demoralized those who hoped Senate Democrats put up a serious oppositional fight against Rice and Gonzalez. The Democrats refusal to organized a filibuster to stop their nominations were a further sign of how weak the "resistance" to Bush is among Senate Democrats.

Some suggested at the time that Senate Democrats didn't block those nominations because they wanted to save their ammunition to stop bills like the one that just passed! Looks like they are shooting blanks or simply forgot to pull the trigger.

[WarNoMore]

8. Anyone know

what happens to suits that have already been filed?

[housewolf]

10. Yes & the House gave the HS Sec unlimited powers

to bypass any and all laws and judicial oversight in order to complete the border fence.

I mean, the bill the House passed today not only sets federal guidelines for state driver licenses and refuses them to illigal immigrants, but grants to the Homeland Security Secretary the power to completely, utterly, bypass and ignore (i.e., BREAK) any and all laws and restrictions - federal, state and local - that might hinder the completion of the border fence. And for the same purposes, it exempts the Homeland Security Secretary from any sort of judicial oversight.

The bill passed the House, it will now go to the Senate. They will likely ammend the legislation. I don't believe they have it scheduled yet but keep your eyes out for this.

To be sure, this is not Bush-initiated legislation. The Republican House of Representatives did this all on their own. They claim it is in response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. You might want to research your representatives involvement and support in this legislation. If they are willing to give the HS Sec unlimited powers to break ANY law and no judicial oversight, what else might they be willing to do?

[denverbill]

12. I certainly care.

American workers are losing every right they ever had and the Democratic leadership doesn't give a damn.

They are funnelling all of these lawsuits into federal courts. Next step, pack the federal courts with right-wing judges friendly to Walmart, Halliburton, Monsanto, etc.

The neocons don't really give a damn about abortion. All they care about is money and power. They will pack the courts with their friends, and then funnel the caseload to their buddies.

I truly don't understand why so many Democrats went along for the ride.

[Jacobin]

14. Well, with fifty-something lockstepping republicans

and anywhere from 10 to 20 republican-lite 'democrats' in the senate, I expect that they will get this done, regardless of what is best or what is right, or what we say. We don't bribe them....businesspeople and lobbyists do.

Hell, I'll bet he could get enough dem votes to authorize him to go invade some middle eastern country on a pretext and a whim, using lies, even if millions of people protested against it....wait, he already did that.

Sorry to be so negative, I'm just losing steam fighting the phalanx. The next awful bill to come up (well in a couple of months anyway) will be the Bankruptcy 'Reform' Act. That one will really make your hair stand on end. Equivalent to indentured servitude.