From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Trial Lawyers and Clintons in bed
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:15:38 GMT


" Hillary Clinton trusts lawyers more than parents.
I think she has it exactly backwards."

In article <1992Sep6.175234.19488@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep1.212734.14105@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, 
>pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) said:
>
>> The cases Hillary Clinton was considering have to do with other
>> things, like "cosmetic surgery, abortion, ..." and other choices a
>> child might contemplate.  She wants to expand the scope of
>> litigation to cover choices a child might make in contravention with
>> the wishes of non-abusing parents.  The "abusive" parents aspect is
>> a deliberate red herring to deflect the issue.
>
>Please cite your reasons for believing this.

Because it is true, and is based on a direct quote of what she wrote.

The discussion of her positions have been written in The New York Times,
The Wall Street Journal, and The American Spectator (and elsewhere of course). 
No write-up that I've encountered disputed my above statements.
In fact, I somewhat understated the situation because I didn't
want to misquote. But it is clear that her earlier (1974) article
does go even farther than this. Her '79 article speaks of
"cosmetic surgery".

>Please bear in mind the
>difference between plastic (or other) surgery performed for purely
>cosmetic reasons and plastic (or other) surgery performed for the
>purpose of correcting or lessening the effects of a medical problem
>(e.g., a harelip).

Did H. Clinton mention harelips? And what do harelips have to do
with abusive parents, anyway?
So a child will go out and pay a lawyer (with whose money?) to sue
the parents so he/she can get the harelip surgery/braces/abortion
desired that the parents don't approve of.  Once the principle is
established, where do you draw the line? You get (you guessed it)
a judge to figure out the fine vague and fuzzy line between an "important"
and "fundamental" decision like harelips, and incosequential ones
like getting tattoos, playing music loudly, etc. More legal meddling.
Hard cases make bad law, and apparently harelips make for harebrained
legal principles.

>> Both Clintons are well-beloved by trial lawyers. Having lawyers
>> further stick their noses into the workings of families is yet
>> another solution-by-litigation that has done more harm than good in
>> the many areas we have tried.
>
>Please cite your reasons for believing this.

I believe it because is true. Hillary Clinton trusts lawyers more than
parents; I think she has it exactly backwards.

>> It's like saying we don't need tort reform because lawsuits only
>> occur with "serious abuses" in liability or medical malpractice.
>> Well, the bill for litigation is $300 billion in this country, and
>> with the lawyers Clinton & Clinton, who are anti-tort reform(*) and
>> pro-litigation, it will further increase.
>
>Please cite your reasons for believing that this figure is accurate.

The source is a Forbes article on the cost of litigation.
Direct costs: $80 billion a year and rising. Add in indirect costs,
and is swells to $300 billion. This study was also cited
by Sen. Rockefeller in a TV debate on S.640, the tort reform bill in the
Senate. S 640 will just nick this problem, but it is a start.

>Please cite your reasons for believing that it would further increase
>under a Clinton administration.

Clinton promises new and wonderful regulations, more "concern" (ie
regulation) for the environment, and is supported by the liberal-lawyers,
such as Ralph Nader's ATLA-supported Public Citizen. 
Please cite your reasons for reasons for asking this apparently
uninformed question.

>Please cite your reasons for
>believing that the current figure, be is $300 billion or not, is too
>high.

Please cite your reasons for believing that the current figure
of $300 billion is a fair cost for an arbitrary legal system
that is used by a weapon by Corporations (eg. Apple, Pennzoil, Lotus) and
interest groups, and yet is incapable of protecting ordinary
citizens from violence, fraud and robbery.

Please read "Knowledge and Decisions" by Thomas Sowell, especially
his chapter on the legal system, to understand where I'm coming from.

Understand that the legal system is *not* a zero sum, but a negative sum
game. You break your leg in an accident, and to recover the damages
of, say $10,000, you may expend twice that amount. So a "recovered"
tort costs more, in time, effort and money, all around, than the original
offense. Contingency-fee lawyers skim off 30% or more of malpractice or
liability suits, suits that may last years and have huge costs.
Understand that Hillary Rodham, not satisfied with the destruction of families
in child custody battles (vz. the recent Allen-Farrow horror show),
postulated, in her briefs, another negative-sum legal jungle for kids
vs. parents.

$300 billion could .... <fill in your more desirable social goal here>
Instead we use it to, inefficiently and with arbitrariness, right
certain wrongs, and in some cases wrong certain rights.
The legal system needs reform and improvement,
and we can and should do that. We need a cleaner, clearer, sharper
line.

>> (*) Clinton killed a tort reform proposal in Arkansas in 1987.  This
>> fact was touted in a fund raising letter for Clinton that was sent
>> to memebers of the American Trial Lawyers Association.  Clinton also
>> opposes the kind of tort reform favored by Bush and Quayle.
>
>Please elaborate.  What were the details of the proposal that Clinton
>"killed"?

The source for this is the WSJ. I since have heard that the fund-raising
letter made it to a Bush advertisement.

> What kind of tort reform is favored by Bush and Quayle?
>Please be specific.

Quayle was specific, last year, in front of the ABA. It apparently
didn't win him much praise there, and I suspect that if I
restated them, it wouldn't help win you over.

But ...  my view: I support the elimination, yes,  *ELIMINATION*, of
contingincy fees, except when the plantiff is indigent.  I
support plaintiffs paying the defendent's court costs if the
plaintiffs are wrong or are instigating a frivolous law suit.
Appalled?

>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Pat, PhD 

PS.  Please cite your reasons, as a friend of liberty, for believing
that a corpulent monstrosity like our own legal system is in fine shape
and is, likewise, a friend to liberty. (hint: I think otherwise.)

PPS. A guilty man comes into your office, and wants you to represent
him and plead not guilty. As his attorney, what does "legal ethics"
require you to do? (hint: doing his bidding, as is the current vogue,
is a suggestion to some of us that "legal ethics" is an oxymoron.)

PPPS.  Please cite your reasons for repeating "please cite your reasons".
:-)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush