The Fleacing Of America By Non responsable people

[sledge]

If you don't want lawyers in office, you have to run for office yourself or at least get out and get someone else to run for office. Quit b!tching about it and do something.

 

[boatme]

The Lawyers' Party
By Bruce Walker

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer and so is his wife Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate.) Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.


The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.


Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office thirty-one years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democratic Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history like Gingrich.


The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And so we have seen the procession of official enemies in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party grow. Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.


This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.


Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all consuming. Some Americans become "adverse parties" of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class action suit. We are citizens of a republic which promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.


Today, we are drowning in laws, we are contorted by judicial decisions, we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to use, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.


We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America. Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.


Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

This was exelent

 

[Ratickle]

One answer is the losing side should pay all legal fees. If you lose a frivolous suit, you would have to pay the opposition's legal fees.
.

That would be nice. But, doubtful it will ever pass. No free handout to buy votes with.

 

[Ratickle]

If you don't want lawyers in office, you have to run for office yourself or at least get out and get someone else to run for office. Quit b!tching about it and do something.

The problem seems to be a non-insider who is honest has no political support so thereis no way to even compete, let alone get elected.

What platform could a honest, non-deal-maker, run on and get the support of any major party?

 

[boatme]

Remember the movie Brewsters Millions ???? we need a platform like Richard Prior had

"Non Of The Above"

 

[Chris]

One answer is the losing side should pay all legal fees. If you lose a frivolous suit, you would have to pay the opposition's legal fees.
.

Then the problem becomes that all civil litigation will be won with the guy with the money. That means anyone insured automatically wins. But then, legal insurance will sprout up. So we're back where we started. The concept of frivolity is harder to define than what's the best tasting flavor of ice cream.

I have an ironclad solution. Liquidated damage awards should all be removed from the jury's hands and the dollar value set by a panel of economists. Punitive damages- those mega awards that are crippling people in areas like health care- those no longer go to the plaintiff. There's nothing wrong in the theory or action of punishing someone for gross negligence, but the plaintiff was already fairly compensated for their injury or damages. Put that punitive money into a fund that pays for something that serves the public good. The core problem with jury-set damage awards is simple- those jurors all can see themselves being the holder of that winning lottery ticket.

And don't get me started on the concept of professional jurors...

 

[sledge]

The problem seems to be a non-insider who is honest has no political support so thereis no way to even compete, let alone get elected.

What platform could a honest, non-deal-maker, run on and get the support of any major party?

It's not supposed to be easy. Right now is probably one of the best times to run outside the two parties. Yeah, the biggest hurdle is money, but I think there's a huge appetite right now for "candidates" outside of the mainstream political BS. I think it truly is the political radicals that are polarizing politics today. Average Joe voter, he just wants things to be reasonable and predictable. And when you think about it, for the most part that's what we've had for a long time. But now we've got some major "change" being proposed and nobody is convinced it's the right thing to do. 2010 is a huge election for Congress. Some of the big names aren't up, but others are.

Running for a US Senate seat as "just a guy" from your state would probably be a non-starter. But US Rep seats can be won on the local, shake hands and kiss babies level. Run as an independent, get the support of a few organizations, and you start getting free press from the newspaper and TV. If you truly present well, you might even raise enough money to pay for mailings.

Personally, I think it's time to reconsider a two-party political system. I don't know whether I've been partially brain-washed by Glenn Beck's pushing of the "Progressive" idea or I'm just plain old disappointed with both parties. I think a lot of voters would get behind an Independent/Constitutional party consisting of hard working citizens.

 

[Wrinkleface]

One answer is the losing side should pay all legal fees. If you lose a frivolous suit, you would have to pay the opposition's legal fees.
.

& the out of work time & any other expenses of the defendant that was sued frivolously!!

 

[Ratickle]

Then the problem becomes that all civil litigation will be won with the guy with the money. That means anyone insured automatically wins. But then, legal insurance will sprout up. So we're back where we started. The concept of frivolity is harder to define than what's the best tasting flavor of ice cream.

I have an ironclad solution. Liquidated damage awards should all be removed from the jury's hands and the dollar value set by a panel of economists. Punitive damages- those mega awards that are crippling people in areas like health care- those no longer go to the plaintiff. There's nothing wrong in the theory or action of punishing someone for gross negligence, but the plaintiff was already fairly compensated for their injury or damages. Put that punitive money into a fund that pays for something that serves the public good. The core problem with jury-set damage awards is simple- those jurors all can see themselves being the holder of that winning lottery ticket.

And don't get me started on the concept of professional jurors...

I almost agree except for one thing...

The lawyers would still claim their percentage of the punitive damages. If you can keep exempt from their claim, you are correct.

 

[2112]

Then the problem becomes that all civil litigation will be won with the guy with the money. That means anyone insured automatically wins. But then, legal insurance will sprout up. So we're back where we started. The concept of frivolity is harder to define than what's the best tasting flavor of ice cream.

I have an ironclad solution. Liquidated damage awards should all be removed from the jury's hands and the dollar value set by a panel of economists. Punitive damages- those mega awards that are crippling people in areas like health care- those no longer go to the plaintiff. There's nothing wrong in the theory or action of punishing someone for gross negligence, but the plaintiff was already fairly compensated for their injury or damages. Put that punitive money into a fund that pays for something that serves the public good. The core problem with jury-set damage awards is simple- those jurors all can see themselves being the holder of that winning lottery ticket.

And don't get me started on the concept of professional jurors...

I see your point but I think the "loser pays" system (or something like it) is already working in several other countries. You know, the ones with socialized medicine that don't want the taxpayers directly enriching the plaintiffs.

Your suggestion also sounds like it might curtail the Plaintiff getting rich but don't forget the lawyer getting 33-50% of the cut. (credit Ratickle)

BTW. Pralines and Cream from Baskin and Robbins. Best Ice cream ever made, end of discussion. :sifone:

 

[Dude! Sweet!]

Remember the movie Brewsters Millions ???? we need a platform like Richard Prior had

"Non Of The Above"

I was thinking about that movie the other day... Who would guess that a "light comedy" like that would turn out to be as on point as Orwell's 1984...

 

[tommymonza]

I am so sick of hearing the Morgan and Morgan commercials down here they are every where.For the people.

But i think this says it all here.http://www.whocanisue.com/content/main/faq.aspx

 

[boatme]

here is it Sam Bernstien or Jeffery Figer ads

 

[Tommy Gun]

I view lawyers as a necessary evil; if you do need one I strongly recommend Dewey, Cheatem and Howe...