From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...  [REPOST]
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 17:23:08 GMT

In <1992Oct15.122120.5554@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, Greg Trotter writes:

>In article <1992Oct15.034149.11160@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) w
>>In article <1992Oct14.225858.16983@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifre
>>
>>>Nobody (but you, so far) is equating tort reform with denying rights.
>>>I don't want to deny your right to legal recourse in the event of
>>>malpractice; I merely want to make sure you get more than your lawyer
>>>does.
>>
>>  Then you want to deny me the right to pay my council whatever
>>I choose.  The whole point of tort reform is putting restrictions on
>>the individuals right to sue. You either want to make it more difficult
>>for me to sue my doctor by restricting the amount that I can spend on
>>a lawyer, or make it more dangerous to sue by making me liable for reverse
>>costs, or you want to limit the amount that I can receive for my injury.

>Yup.

Most observers of the legal system feel that tort awards are too low for those
who really deserve them and too high for those who don't.

I think an even more important legal reform is to make a losing plaintiff (or
their attorney on contingency cases) pay for all court costs.  Right now, there
is little incentive to avoid litigation.

A recent case involved someone suing a bicycle manufacturer because the bike
didn't come with a disclaimer that riding on the handlebar is dangerous.  The
plaintiff was riding on the handlebars and was injured.  Why should the defen-
dant have to pay court costs and attorney's fees for such a ridiculous suit?

YOU could be the next one who is hit with a ridiculous suit.  Do you want to
pay thousands of dollars for your own defense for such a farcical lawsuit?  is
that fair to the defendant?

>>>I doubt that. We've got hundreds of seats up for grabs in Congress, and
>>>there is a substantial anti-incumbent mood in America. Bush may have
>>>problems passing legislation to help America and it's economy if he
>>>faces a Democratic Congress (like he has lately with the much-needed
>>>capital gains tax), but who knows what'll happen next month?
>>
>>
>>  Sorry bud, but it looks like we're not only looking at a
>>democratic congress, but we're looking at *more* democrats in the
>>Senate and a continuing majority in the house. It's a good thing
>>Bush won't have to deal with that, huh?

>More demos? Where did you get that from? I think there's a strong possibility
>that we'll have many more reps in the House. And I believe, that come
>election day, we'll have one in the White House again. I give the public
>a lot more credit than does the media -- I think they'll remember the
>last time a democratic executive and legislative got together.

I wish I could agree.  However, anti-Bush sentiment, even among Republicans,
will hurt.  In 1980, many anti-Carter Democrats stayed home, and dragged the
Democratic congressional candidates down with Carter.  I think a lot of GOP
voters will abstain from voting due to their disdain for Bush.  The net result
could be a Democratic gain (ugh) in Congress.

I may not like the Democrat philosophy, but I have to be honest with myself,
and I call 'em as I see 'em.


Tim Irvin  j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***************************************************************************
"Take a breath, Al.  Lighten up." -- Dan Quayle to Al Gore, 10/13/92
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion