Article

2008-03-14 Home Front: WoT

House Version of Domestic Surveillance Bill Passes 213-197

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Harry Reid 2008-03-14 15:21|| || Front Page|| [10 views ] Top

#1 "All members of Congress should see those documents so they could see the breadth and scope" of the wiretapping program, said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass.

John Tierney AKA Marty Meehan Lite...
Good God, John, don't call attention to yourself! The voters will remember you're down there!

Posted by tu3031 2008-03-14 17:26|| 2008-03-14 17:26|| Front Page Top

#2 Please correct me if I am wrong but the totality of the lawsuits AGAINST telcomms number about 12. So the Commie Pinko Faggots (aka Democrats) are hoplding the nations security at bay for a dozen moonbats? Please somebody give a speech outlining this and describing what actually happened after 9/11 versus some moonbat black helocopter wet dream. The only way that you could have had your rights "technically" violated was if you were in direct communications with a KNOWN or HIGHLY SUSPECTED terroroists over seas. I was in the intel community for 20 years and I have to tell you right now that this is NOT a FISA question, This very scenario is taught at intel school TODAY.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2008-03-14 17:51|| 2008-03-14 17:51|| Front Page Top

#3 political treason for lawyer contributions and to placate the moonbat wing. Get their names on the record (including their lawyer backers) and when the next attack happens...prosecute and string em up (in whichever order you wish to do that....not up to me to judge...). The Senate and the Exec won't go along and this needs to be made into GOP attack ads at the national level:
"when the means to provide security to the nation were up for a vote, House Democrats chose terrorist's privacy rights and big windfalls for their trial lawyer backers over teh safety of your wife going to wor, your kids in their school, your coworkers and friends. Why? Because the House Democrats have different priorities and values than you, America. Sleep well?"

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-14 18:16|| 2008-03-14 18:16|| Front Page Top

#4 wor? work, even.....Damn, I hate typing when I'm angry

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-14 18:17|| 2008-03-14 18:17|| Front Page Top

#5 Dems sold out to the trial lawyers. As usual.

Vermin, both of them.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-03-14 18:38|| 2008-03-14 18:38|| Front Page Top

#6 cingold is a trial lawyer, and I get plenty sick of everyone bitching about them

Posted by ex-lib 2008-03-14 18:57|| 2008-03-14 18:57|| Front Page Top

#7 why don't you just say BAD trial lawyers

there's bad people in every profession

I'm proud of cingold

if your lying insurance company whom you have been paying premiums to for years, denies benefits you are entitled to after an accident, and you are suffering physically, a trial lawyer is your only hope

Posted by ex-lib 2008-03-14 18:59|| 2008-03-14 18:59|| Front Page Top

#8 but this is just to get votes

Posted by ex-lib 2008-03-14 19:01|| 2008-03-14 19:01|| Front Page Top

#9 Cingold, AFAIK, is not a class-action parasite like the ones for whose benefit this is intended. If Cingold is, then I reserve the right to criticize. Given the reasonable responses/comments from Cingold, I think I'm safe

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-03-14 20:04|| 2008-03-14 20:04|| Front Page Top

#10 Problem is there seem to be more trial lawyers bent on abusing the system than those with establishing a just outcome.

And in general, most I have met are intelligent, liberal and sleazy.

Sorry - although that sort of occupation draws crusaders, it also draws far more con men.

We would not allow such scumbag behavior on the part of Doctors or Bankers, so why not some common sense on Lawyers?

Eliminate lawyers receiving any share of the awards. Awards are for plaintiffs. Not the lawyers.

Put limits on punitive awards above and beyond actual provable damages in civil cases.

The problem is that civil suits do not really punish scumbag lawyers for bringing frivolous suits, nor using bad tactics. Like the McDonalds verdict, or the venue shopping (E Texas for example). They instead encourage bringing suit for an amount that will cost less to settle than it would to litigate. And that is no good in that for anyone except the scumbag lawyers who bring such suits.

For big awards, make the lawyers put some of their own skin into the game on BOTH sides.

If you want to sue under unlimited awards, or take a share of the award (contingency), then you must agree to the rule that the losing side pays the fees of the winning side. In the case of the indigent, the LAWYER pays.

Risk and reward needs to be rebalanced. That would do it.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-03-14 20:09|| 2008-03-14 20:09|| Front Page Top

#11 To put it another way, why do some doctors get HUGE fees? Because they are the best at what they do for their clients..

Same should go for lawyers. You good at what you do? You charge more. You mediocre? You get less.

Welcome to the free market. No more lawsuit lotto.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-03-14 20:23|| 2008-03-14 20:23|| Front Page Top

#12 More or less any "class action" lawyer is pond scum. They make millions for themselves and award pennies to the "members" of the class. How many times have you gotten something in the mail notifying you that you, as a member of a class, are entitled to damages as a result of a class action suit? The amounts to which I was entitled varied from 47¢ to $1.17. When I lived in Cincinnati, I watched Stan Chesley shamelessly exploit human suffering for personal enrichment (always contributing huge amounts to the Dems). You may know a few good ones, but the ones I have met have their own circle in Hell, just above their Dem enablers.

Posted by RWV 2008-03-14 21:03|| 2008-03-14 21:03|| Front Page Top

#13 pssssst...congress(ssshh)...we are watching you.
-your constituants.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-03-14 21:50|| 2008-03-14 21:50|| Front Page Top

#14 No insult to the good barristers here, but I have seen far too many medical lawsuits against doctors I know that were completely frivolous, but were launched to make money for the lawyer with no regard to the truth. They were suing for a payday, because they knew how much the malpractice insurance would pay out in lieu of the cost of a trial.

You cannot guarantee outcomes in medical procedures. Human bodies react differently and there are cases where predisposition and circumstances overcome the skill of the doctor.

That is why I despise these lawyers. They and the unjust astronomical awards are one of the major drivers of medical costs and one of the reasons for over-prescription and overly cautious and counterproductive medical practices (c.f. rise in c-sections).

The lawyers that promote these types of suits deserve to be beaten to death by chimpanzees.

Same thing goes with product liability suits, and many other cases of Legal Idiocies.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-03-14 22:42|| 2008-03-14 22:42|| Front Page Top

#15 If you would like more discussion about lawyers, and are having a problem with overly low blood pressure, and would like to raise it, I recommend Overlawyered.com

Posted by Rambler in California">Rambler in California 2008-03-14 23:01|| 2008-03-14 23:01|| Front Page Top

23:57 Barbara Skolaut
23:54 Barbara Skolaut
23:52 whatadeal
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:27 3dc
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:25 3dc
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:01 Rambler in California
22:42 OldSpook
22:41 Muggsy Gling
22:41 Hupaper Lumplump4499
22:16 JosephMendiola
22:08 McZoid
22:06 swksvolFF
22:04 Abu do you love
22:04 JosephMendiola
22:03 swksvolFF
22:02 JosephMendiola
22:00 Abu do you love
21:57 Grand Proconsul Sock Puppet
21:52 Grand Proconsul Sock Puppet
21:50 swksvolFF
21:46 swksvolFF