"Hot Coffee" & Tort Reform

[R/T Hemi]

You know IB. When I dialog with someone, and they resort to name calling, they are manifesting the weakness of their position. Once that's happened, it's apparent I'm dealing with someone's inner child instead of an adult. I've made my points and I'm moving on.

Enjoy your thread.

[szh]

IBCoupe, enough with the personal attacks and personal insults. It is okay to attack a position, but not the person making them - yes, we allow discussions to go further than usual in the Politics forum, but your posts are unacceptably worded.

If you are hot under the collar for anything said in here, take a walk and do not bother to post a response. I no longer want to waste my time cleaning up after you.

More of the same and I will enforce a vacation.

Z

[AZhitman]

With all due respect for IB's knowledge and critical thinking skills, as well as a healthy appreciation of R/T's "everyman" point of view, I support Z's position above wholeheartedly.

[srellim234]

I don't condone the personal name-calling but I certainly share IB's frustration with many of the conservatives on this forum. Even, you, AZ, are copying the closed-minded, lack of willingness to acknowledge when either a mistake has been made or refuse to acknowledge that maybe the other side's argument has merit.

Whether it be the willingness to deny due process of union workers only because you don't like unions or Hemi's lack of even proposing a solution to the system that he claims is broken is typical of what we are seeing in Congress right now.

I explained how you were clearly against those workers getting their fair hearing and then having a decision on employment rendered. You never responded. No acknowledgement, no admission, no argument, no response whatsoever. Hemi is carrying on about a system that is broken because it allows a person to file what is, in his mind, a frivolous suit. So who makes that determination? Right now, anyone can file anything. The judge can throw it out at any time, even before it hits the trial stage. I'm guessing that Hemi wants to add to the government employee payrolls by adding another layer do exactly the preliminary review, hearing, etc. that the judges are doing now. But, he continues to rely on anectdotal evidence that by filing in the first place the system must be broken. His response is to continue the "I'm right, damn the evidence" and the "I'm right but I just want to play the part of criticizer and/or dictator instead of offering a viable solution" that is so pervasive in our political system today.

It's very frustrating when people keep insisting here that they are right in the face of the evidence. The evidence causes them to clam up instead of acknowledging anything. The moderators here have no problem with insulting Telco because he refuses to listen to reason in some cases; I've seen plenty of personal attacks on him as well as others. I would suggest that the moderators (including yourself) be held to the same standards.

Sorry for the rant but quite simply I share IB's frustration. You people don't want a rational discussion and an attempt at compromise and solution between opposing viewpoints. You want to win at all costs and dictate to others come hell or high water. Right or wrong, you are right and won't budge.

At this point I have other things going on in my life so I probably won't be back for a bit.

[R/T Hemi]

@srellim...

I wasn't going to respond further here, but you've raised a few points that need addressed. First of all, this is the internet. In fact, it's a forum on the internet where the free exchange of ideas, within the bounds of a few rules, brings people together. Opinions differ, it happens. It means nothing once you log off.

If Greg wants to deny due process to union workers, I respect that as his opinion. If he wants to blame Chrysler's problems for a few employees who drink or smoke on their break, it's his right. In both cases I neither agree with or support his stance, but in all fairness, his stance isn't without some justification.

I read this thread title as "Hot Coffee" & Tort Reform. Since my cupboard is full of Tasters Choice, I elected to address the tort reform part or the thread. I did so by pointing out the abundance of frivolous lawsuits that a simple Google search locates. Believe me, there are more than I have time to look at or post. I pointed out that the tort system is broken because these suits got filed. It matters little to me that they are dismissed early on, (After the defendant has gone to the expense of hiring an attorney and defending the case). What matters is that these get filed at all.

I opined that these cases were the result of too many attorneys chasing too few viable cases. They take what walks through the door just to pay their mortgage. I pointed out that, without efforts to correct this problem, the next decade would provide a 40% increase in attorneys, (ABA estimates) and that those 40% would probably result,if nothing else, in a 40% increase in frivolous lawsuits. I wonder how much of my insurance premiums pay for tort abuse by those hungry attorneys?

You want me to offer a way to fix it? Were it that easy. My first choice would be to let the people who broke it attempt to fix it, but from what I've seen from the OP, they don't see that there is that much of a problem because "these cases eventually get tossed out." That's kind of like telling the cop "Well, I was going 100mph, but I slowed down when I saw you." My point is that the system is broken when these cases get filed in the first place, by an attorney who should be capable of seeing how ridiculous they are. Why hasn't the bar instituted a 3 strikes law for attorneys filing frivolous lawsuits? We both know that's never coming.

So, yes, I would strongly support tort reform even if it required public funds to facilitate. Once other more pressing issues are resolved, I'm sure it will be coming.

[szh]

Think of it in the following way: what "liberals" think of as frustration with viewpoints expressed by "conservatives" is equally felt by "conservatives" with viewpoints expressed by "liberals".

Or if not labeled in that manner, people can, and do, take opposing opinionated positions on anything. That is their right.

Neither side is wrong in their own eyes of course!

But, we must discuss it calmly in this forum is the important thing - that is the purpose of the existence of this forum.

My point is simple: there is a difference between attacking a position taken by a poster (even if the position or attack is done arbitrarily and/or irrationally) and attacking a person posting here (arbitrarily and/or irrationally) with insults and name calling.

The second is unacceptable and I cannot let it slide. Words not to the point or position and are clearly intended to explicitly impugn a person posting, will get removed. If that cannot be done cleanly and easily, then the entire post will be deleted.

My advice: if anybody gets frustrated to the point where they need to attack a person (not their position or point), then they need to "walk away", cool down, and/or not post.

This is not a "I must win the argument" battleground.

Z

[szh]

refuse to acknowledge that maybe the other side's argument has merit.

Q: why should I acknowledge that another side's argument has merit if I truly don't believe that it does?

And, this is not a rhetorical point I am making here.

Yes, I can agree that you have an argument (I call it position) different from mine, but I don't have to agree that it has merit (assuming, of course, that I really believe that !)

I explained how you were clearly against those workers getting their fair hearing and then having a decision on employment rendered. You never responded. No acknowledgement, no admission, no argument, no response whatsoever.

Okay ... but that is his choice, no?

I am confused as to why Greg had to respond.

Hemi is carrying on about a system that is broken because it allows a person to file what is, in his mind, a frivolous suit. So who makes that determination? Right now, anyone can file anything. The judge can throw it out at any time, even before it hits the trial stage. I'm guessing that Hemi wants to add to the government employee payrolls by adding another layer do exactly the preliminary review, hearing, etc. that the judges are doing now. But, he continues to rely on anectdotal evidence that by filing in the first place the system must be broken. His response is to continue the "I'm right, damn the evidence" and the "I'm right but I just want to play the part of criticizer and/or dictator instead of offering a viable solution" that is so pervasive in our political system today.

Again, my points will be simple (BTW, FWW, I happen to disagree with Hemi's stance on this):

1. He is not insisting that he is right. He is describing situations that he believes represent his observation and position.

2. What is wrong with being a "criticizer"? That is what he believes is extremely wrong with the system and he is entitled to his opinion - even if you and I disagree with it (to varying degrees).

3. Why does he need to offer a viable solution? Most people either don't have a viable solution or are not qualified to make them on topics outside their experience.

4. I hope you don't really believe that Hemi is wanting to play the part of a Dictator.

Sorry for the rant but quite simply I share IB's frustration. You people don't want a rational discussion and an attempt at compromise and solution between opposing viewpoints. You want to win at all costs and dictate to others come hell or high water. Right or wrong, you are right and won't budge.

Seems to me that this could sometimes apply to many people posting here - including you and IBCoupe and Greg and Telcoman and ... ... and I, btw!

But so what? <shrug> People are entitled to their opinion and it may well differ from yours and mine.

All I say is: nothing said in this forum must lead to a personal attack against the person making the point or position.

Z

[AZhitman]

As much as Hemi and I disagree, he makes a good point - I don't need to continue to try to defend my position on the union workers. See, I deal with the EEOC, the ADA, the Attorney General, the Personnel Board and our in-house Human Resources counsel every day. When someone screws up, they're fired. They're welcome to appeal the determination, but I don't recommend termination of employment on a simple whim.

Sometimes one's due process isn't exactly as YOU think it should be. That doesn't mean they're being DENIED due process. See, you skip the details in a zealous attempt to be "right".

So, with that said, why would I confer merit on a position that I not only disagree with, but am better-versed in than you? I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the public school system - I'd defer to you all day long on that.

My philosophy is this: You can fight / appeal your termination, but you're going to do it from outside, where you can't do any further damage to the agency or its reputation. It's simple risk assessment. And after 8 years, I have yet to have one EEOC case overturned, one ADA case overturned, one termination overturned, or one disciplinary action overturned. When someone's employment interests are at stake, I take that very seriously. The presence or absence of a union membership means absolutely d!ck to me.

[R/T Hemi]

Let's lighten the thread up a little.

On their way to get married, a young couple are involved in a fatal car accident. They find themselves sitting outside the Pearly Gates waiting for St Peter to admit them to Heaven.

While waiting, they begin to wonder: Could they possibly get married in Heaven? When St Peter shows up, they ask him.

St Peter says, "I don't know. This is the first time anyone has asked. Let me go and find out."

The couple sit and wait for an answer... for a couple of months. As they wait, they discuss whether IF they were allowed to get married in Heaven, they SHOULD actually go ahead with it, what with the eternal aspect of it all.

"What if it doesn't work?" they wonder. "Are we stuck together FOREVER?"

After yet another month, St Peter finally returns looking somewhat bedraggled.

"Yes," he informs the couple, "you CAN get married in Heaven."

"Great!" say the couple. "But we were just wondering, what if things don't work out? Could we also get a divorce in Heaven?"

St Peter, red-faced with anger, slams his clipboard on the ground.

"What's wrong?" ask the frightened couple.

"Oh, COME ON!!" St Peter shouts. "It took me three months to find a PRIEST up here! Do you have any idea how long it'll take me to find a lawyer?"

[szh]

Z

[IBCoupe]

You know IB. When I dialog with someone, and they resort to name calling, they are manifesting the weakness of their position. Once that's happened, it's apparent I'm dealing with someone's inner child instead of an adult. I've made my points and I'm moving on.

Enjoy your thread.

I called you an a** because you behaved that way. You criticize lawyers and imply corruption for the simple act of doing their job. You call people "dimwit" and "dumb@$$" and play fast and loose with the facts when the facts are the only thing that could possibly help your argument.

If I resort to namecalling, it's because you're making bad arguments, not good ones. The fact that you think you're doing well just proves to me how little you actually understand the issue.

But here's my rule: when somebody bows out after a thread of rudeness and personal insults ("What's your excuse this time, IB?") because it's just too hostile, chances are, they're just plain out of their league.

[IBCoupe]

Q: why should I acknowledge that another side's argument has merit if I truly don't believe that it does?

And, this is not a rhetorical point I am making here.

Yes, I can agree that you have an argument (I call it position) different from mine, but I don't have to agree that it has merit (assuming, of course, that I really believe that !)

I don't want him to acknowledge that there's merit to my arguments. I want him to address my arguments.

"There's a lot of safeguards in the system that protect against frivolous lawsuits."
"THERE'S LOTS OF LAWYERS"
"Yes, but they're not nearly all trial lawyers, and only a tiny percentage are personal injury lawyers."
"HERE'S MORE STATISTICS SHOWING THAT THERE'S LOTS OF LAWYERS AND THERE WILL BE MORE."
"..."
"HERE'S ANOTHER ANECDOTE"
"Here's why that's wrong. And stop being a douche."
"YOU'RE A MEAN PERSON; I'M OUT."

And, Z, when you chime in to aid his avoidance of my arguments:


Seriously, Z, if you think what happened in this thread resembled reasoned discourse (you know something's wrong when Stebo looks like the most level-headed person in the thread; I love you, boo!) then you'd be doing me a favor with that vacation.

[IBCoupe]

I did so by pointing out the abundance of frivolous lawsuits that a simple Google search locates.

Which is probably why you chose to simply ignore my deconstruction of each of them? Why you ignored my explanation of why it's that way and why we need it that way? And so you shifted the goalposts to a desire to stop people at the courthouse door and frisk them until a strong case pops out?

You're expecting wayyyyyy too much out of pre-discovery plaintiffs.

[R/T Hemi]

If I resort to namecalling, it's because you're making bad arguments, not good ones. The fact that you think you're doing well just proves to me how little you actually understand the issue.

IBCoupe: Your honor, I object.

His Honor: Overrules, sit down.

IBCoupe: Your're a d*** your Honor.

Good luck with your philosophy.

In a serious note, I'd work on overcoming your frustration with those you can't convince with your perfect logic and verbal skills. When someone lacks the ability to handle a little frustration without responding like a grade school playground bully, they've lost before they began. I hope you pay attention to this before it becomes your Achilles heel.

[R/T Hemi]

@ IB

I've pointed out WHY the system is broken. I've give examples, which you've blindly defended as necessary and proper application of the principles of law. You've ignored the fact that courts have ruled many of the suits frivolous. You insist that the system works BECAUSE the system tossed the cases. MY point is that the system is broken because these suits were filed in the first place. The system lacks safeguards to that end and allows, if you please, the fox to have the keys to the hen house.

Your argument is not too different than a cop who gives everyone tickets he "thinks, possibly," might have been speeding, leaving it to the judge to determine who has a valid defense. Sort of screws those can't, for whatever reason, mount a viable defense. But hey, look it works, some got tossed out.....

[IBCoupe]

MY point is that the system is broken because these suits were filed in the first place.

and that's an absurd standard. Not one of the parties involved has all the pertinent facts at this point. What's the alternative, Hemi? How do we properly limit someone's ability to fax pleadings to a court? How do we do that without hampering the ability of someone with a real case to right their suffered wrong?

Because that's what you're freaking out about, and that's what's fighting against you. Want to make it harder for plaintiffs? Fine, but god bless you if a doctor gives you the wrong meds.

[IBCoupe]

If I resort to namecalling, it's because you're making bad arguments, not good ones. The fact that you think you're doing well just proves to me how little you actually understand the issue.

IBCoupe: Your honor, I object.

His Honor: Overrules, sit down.

IBCoupe: Your're a d*** your Honor.

Good luck with your philosophy.

In a serious note, I'd work on overcoming your frustration with those you can't convince with your perfect logic and verbal skills. When someone lacks the ability to handle a little frustration without responding like a grade school playground bully, they've lost before they began. I hope you pay attention to this before it becomes your Achilles heel.

I have no intention of being a litigator, but thanks for giving me another opportunity to prove wrong one of your main points. Way to go, winner!

[R/T Hemi]

MY point is that the system is broken because these suits were filed in the first place.

and that's an absurd standard. Not one of the parties involved has all the pertinent facts at this point. What's the alternative, Hemi? How do we properly limit someone's ability to fax pleadings to a court? How do we do that without hampering the ability of someone with a real case to right their suffered wrong?

Because that's what you're freaking out about, and that's what's fighting against you. Want to make it harder for plaintiffs? Fine, but god bless you if a doctor gives you the wrong meds.

We're talking frivolous lawsuits.

friv·o·lous/ˈfrivələs/Adjective
1. Not having any serious purpose or value
2. (of a person) Carefree and not serious

I thought we both understood that.

You know, suits like suing the owner of a car, who wasn't present when some drunk/loaded woman drove it down the wrong side of the expressway carrying other peoples children to their death. Why, for not having a drunk friendly car?

[IBCoupe]

]We're talking frivolous lawsuits.

friv·o·lous/ˈfrivələs/Adjective
1. Not having any serious purpose or value
2. (of a person) Carefree and not serious

I thought we both understood that.

Oh, Jesus Christ on a bicycle.

Look, you're aware that we have one system, right? We don't have a "meritorious case" bucket and a "meritless case" bucket. Any change you make to make it harder to bring a meritless case will have the simultaneous effect of making it harder to bring every other case.

And logically, we're talking about cases where there is a nugget of merit, at a stage of the game where it's hard to tell to experienced professionals whether the case is a winner. If there weren't merit or if it were clear that it's a loser, the safeguards that exist (contingency fee, sanctions) would make it extremely difficult to find a lawyer willing to take the case.

[R/T Hemi]

Oh I get it.

We shouldn't fix it because it would be too hard to fix? So, we'll just let it run in 5 cylinders.

I think you've bought too deeply into the dogma they serve first year law students without realizing it's designed to protect their meal ticket, not the rights of honest citizens.

[AppleBonker]

LOL @ this thread. We should try the case before we try the case to determine (without trying the case) if it's worth it to try the case.

[R/T Hemi]

LOL @ this thread. We should try the case before we try the case to determine (without trying the case) if it's worth it to try the case.

How about we just use common sense instead of greed.

BTW, That's called a Preliminary Hearing in criminal law, and it works quite well in protecting against overzealous prosecution.

[AppleBonker]

This is making my head hurt. Common sense would point out that not having all the facts/information (IE - not hearing the full case) would render you incapable of determining if the case is frivolous or not.

[R/T Hemi]

Well, we certainly couldn't investigate the matter PRIOR to filing could we, when we have the option to file and see what surfaces. Kind of like fishing with hand grenades.

[IBCoupe]

Oh I get it.

We shouldn't fix it because it would be too hard to fix? So, we'll just let it run in 5 cylinders.

I think you've bought too deeply into the dogma they serve first year law students without realizing it's designed to protect their meal ticket, not the rights of honest citizens.

See? This is why I call you names. You make s*** up. Nowhere in there did you write anything that addressed what I actually wrote.

[IBCoupe]

LOL @ this thread. We should try the case before we try the case to determine (without trying the case) if it's worth it to try the case.

How about we just use common sense instead of greed.

BTW, That's called a Preliminary Hearing in criminal law, and it works quite well in protecting against overzealous prosecution.

Because there the prosecution is the government, and a man can be put to death.

But even if we apply this to a civil case, which is not about enforcing a law but rather about settling a dispute between two equal parties, are you sure you're saving any costs?

[R/T Hemi]

See? This is why I call you names. You make s*** up. Nowhere in there did you write anything that addressed what I actually wrote.

Try these two comments on. I think they will both fit fine.....

and that's an absurd standard. Not one of the parties involved has all the pertinent facts at this point. What's the alternative, Hemi? How do we properly limit someone's ability to fax pleadings to a court? How do we do that without hampering the ability of someone with a real case to right their suffered wrong?

Oh, Jesus Christ on a bicycle.

Look, you're aware that we have one system, right? We don't have a "meritorious case" bucket and a "meritless case" bucket. Any change you make to make it harder to bring a meritless case will have the simultaneous effect of making it harder to bring every other case.

[IBCoupe]

Well, we certainly couldn't investigate the matter PRIOR to filing could we, when we have the option to file and see what surfaces. Kind of like fishing with hand grenades.

Yeah, good luck getting someone to reveal otherwise confidential information. That's why I keep saying we're "pre-discovery."

[R/T Hemi]

See? This is why I call you names. You make s*** up. Nowhere in there did you write anything that addressed what I actually wrote.

Try these two comments on. I think they will both fit fine.....

and that's an absurd standard. Not one of the parties involved has all the pertinent facts at this point. What's the alternative, Hemi? How do we properly limit someone's ability to fax pleadings to a court? How do we do that without hampering the ability of someone with a real case to right their suffered wrong?

Oh, Jesus Christ on a bicycle.

Look, you're aware that we have one system, right? We don't have a "meritorious case" bucket and a "meritless case" bucket. Any change you make to make it harder to bring a meritless case will have the simultaneous effect of making it harder to bring every other case.

[IBCoupe]

And...? Come on, you can do it. There's a point out there somewhere.