not you personaly, at all, just the constant anti obama propaganda... that is lame and tired
your cool in my book, as is kabong
that's good to know.
Im just asking, especially after what you just posted in the other thread, to lay off remarks about how tired, unfunny, lame or whatever other adjective you have used and simply address the topic or ignore it since that's what you wish us to do towards you also. Because we are going to post what we wanna and you will continue to post what you wanna. I can think you're pro-obama threads are lame, tired, getting old...what have you but I will address the content of your threads if I disagree and not insult you for posting it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
bullshit.. you "preached to the choir" about Bush for the last 5 years... everyone here is against the war, that hasnt stopped you from "preaching to the choir"
nice try
bullshit, there used to be a lot of conservatives here who supported the war...but as teh war fell apart and became a collossal waste they left, went to other sections, stopped supporting bush....
and are there even any mccain supporters here?
we see wrong as wrong, it's not dependent on party affiliation
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
How do you feel about his votes for the Patriot Act?
he was not in federal office, so he did not vote for the first version which john mccain and hillary both did. he voted for the edited version. which i am still not a fan of obviously, however i am not a us senator that is responsible for helping provide security to a nation of 300 million 4 years after a devstating terrorist attack. so, however i may disagree with the patriot act, in nearly any form, i can understand the reality of the situation and the tremendous burden and concern for safety
How do you feel about his votes to fund the war and prolong it instead of urging withdrawl?
i have gone over the voting for funds for the war. he has consistently urged withdrawl voted yes on votes for withdrawl that were VETO'd by Bush. the house didnt have enough votes to even get it back to the senate to try and over turn the veto
How do you feel about his vote for the CAFA?
i have no problem with it at all really... i dont have that big of a problem with the biull. all it does really is say that a federal judge will preside over class action suits over $5 million or where plaintiffs are from different states. i see no problem with that. i dont want a state judging deciding a $300 million dollar case, and believe me i know state judges.
How do you feel about HR 676 Single Payer National Insurance and Obama's non support of it?
i like the idea of SPNI... but i am not dead set against other ideas and forms of universal healthcare/insurance. i actually like Obama's quasi mix of the current system mixed with universal to meet the needs of everyone, WITHOUT MANDATES. i do believe at one time he was a fan of single payer, but faced with the reality if the current system he may have moved slightly, tinkering, to come up with a plan for universal coverage. for instance, i have great insurance provided by my employer. that is part of my benefits package, which i enjoy. so i dont NEED that to be changed currently. down the road i would like to see a complete single payer system, but i do believe that this will take some time and we need to get headed in that general direction. which i believe that is what Obamas plan does. a major shift in direction, without doing a complete u-turn in one spin of the wheel. which in this country, may be the ONLY damn way to get something done. everyone thinks their way is the only way, and we end up where we are. polarized.
How do you feel about his lobbyists in the nuclear power industry and his continued support of it?
i have no problem with his support of nucleaer power for energy purposes. have you fileld your tank lately? he is also not the champion of nuclear power either, that has been blown way out of proportion just like anything that comes up about him at this point. he has the worlds largest magnifying glass onhim at all times. but anyway,he has said that he is anti nuclear weapon and said that we must try and rid the planet of nuclear arms, including ours. that is a dymanic shift from the current administration. do i wish we could get rid of it and move to solar/wind tommorow. FUCK YES, but that tales time as well... so we need to utilize what we have available now, or everyone needs to radicly change their lifestyle. we can all turn off our computers if you want, but that means you have to do it too. i have no problem with his donations from the nuclear industry
How do you feel about his vote for the wall on the border and he new campaign stance of being against it?
illegal immigratiuon was allowed to become a problem under this administartion, for cheap domestic labor. understaffed and poorly executed border security has created a problem. i dont consider anyone "illegal", however i recognize the problems it causes. so the wall, i am typically against any kind of wall or barrier between people... but talk to the people that are on that border and they love it... so what the hell, who knows, i am an idealist... however he does suppprt "illegals" rights, drivers licenses for instance and medical care and education... how do you feel about his OPEN support of drivers licenses?
How do you feel about his vote against the credit card interest rate cap while his campaign has been so against predatory lending?
this is why senators are NEVER elected president... because they have a voting record... and if you dig enopugh you will find votes that don't seem right... thats why you have to be careful looking at particualr votes... looking at votes with a broader scope is probably the way to go, because when breaking it down to minute details you can find all kinds of weird votes, which i pointed out a few on kucinich's record which do not seem to line up with his stances and beliefs. there are all kinds of reasons to not vote for a bill or to vote for a bill. small things that we do not see when just glancing at it, or just read the title of the bill and jump to conclusions. do i think there should be a cap on interest rates, yes. do i think americans are to blame for using credit too much and living beyond their means, yes. am i going to base my support of Obama on this one bill, no. do i know why he voted the way he did, no. i have seen him explain this a few years ago and i beleiev he said there were things in the bill that he felt were worth voting for, even though he had concerns with some other things, he felt he had to vote for it to secure some of the positives that were bartered and in the bill. votes on senate bills is not always as cut and dry as some would like to make it out. thse bills are HUGE, with many provisions added and subtracted and toyed with to please enough people to get them passed. just remember, polarized hardliners get nothing done in this country and we make no progress whatsoever. you have to be able to compromise some things. it is easy to not compromise on our couch, but as a senator actually tryng to get things done i imagine it is different
How do you feel about him sponsering the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005?
he co-sponsored with clinton... but anyway, i see know problem wit this bill? what are your concerns?
How do you feel about his opposition to The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 while having a key advisor in Nevada that is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies?
i have to be honest, i dont know anything about the bill. but i do think it passed? help me out a little, cliff notes version
How do you feel about his weak energy policy in a time of crisis?
"weak" is your opinion... maybe you want to refine that or point out your concerns...
How do you feel about his doublespeak on NAFTA brought up in this article?
"doublespeak" is your opinion... what article by the way?
How do you feel about his leanings towards supporting Israel?
he has also said he supports a palestinian state... thats one of those where the hardcore lefty's take an inch and make it a mile... even mentioning Israel makes you a war monger in some circles, or so it seems... which i am not in that crowd... i am looking for reasonable solutions to the problem, not hardliners on either side, frankly
whats your prpblem with those issues you listed above? you asked me to say how i feel about them, but you didnt exactly point out what you had concerns with. a few of thise bills are not bad in my opinion. what concerns did you see with those bills and votes?
whats your prpblem with those issues you listed above? you asked me to say how i feel about them, but you didnt exactly point out what you had concerns with. a few of thise bills are not bad in my opinion. what concerns did you see with those bills and votes?
I have made myself more than clear on these issues time and time again. Go find the pandering 101 thread kabong started...a lot of it was addressed in there. I don't feel like repeating myself right now and us end up bickering again...it gets outta control and makes me uncomfortable.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
ok, thats cool... when you get a chance just let me know, or anyone else feel free, what you dislike about these 2 bills. i am no expert and am honestly interested in what i am missing here...
CAFA?
National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005?
ok, thats cool... when you get a chance just let me know, or anyone else feel free, what you dislike about these 2 bills. i am no expert and am honestly interested in what i am missing here...
CAFA?
National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005?
well, i had a longer post w/ more links but i didn't hit remember me and it is lost....so here's a link for each w/ a cliff notes version of complaint
The U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715, expanded federal jurisdiction over many large class-action lawsuits and mass actions taken in the United States.
The bill was the first major legislation in the second term for the Bush Administration. Business groups and tort reform supporters had lobbied for the legislation, arguing that it was needed to prevent class-action lawsuit abuse. [1] President George W. Bush had vowed to support this legislation.
The Act gives federal courts jurisdiction to certain class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and in which any of the members of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, unless at least two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. The Act also directs the Courts to give greater scrutiny to class action settlements, especially those involving coupons.
Critics charged that the legislation would deprive Americans of legal recourse when they were wronged by powerful corporations. Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the bill "the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised."[2]
Critics charge that this bill will make it far more difficult to bring class action suits, and may prolong such litigation, clogging the federal courts' dockets. The act also gives the Federal government the ability to somewhat control, through judicial appointments, outcomes that were previously under state control. No Republican legislators voted against the bill. Critics argue that the expansion of federal jurisdiction comes at the expense of state's rights and federalism, something Republicans have historically protested; however, proponents respond that the bill is consistent with the Framers' original intent for the role of federal courts and diversity jurisdiction expressed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 80.
there are also some good links in the further reading part including a piece by a professor at the UCLA school of Law, Fordham Law Review, caselaw and law.com
and i believe it set a limit on how much could be awarded, but could be wrong
For example, a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, the University of Michigan Health System, and the private insurer Copic Insurance Company in Colorado have adopted such policies and have reported significantly decreased legal expenses and smaller claim payouts.
(B) An agreement that any apology or expression of remorse by a doctor or other designated health care provider at any time during the negotiations shall be kept confidential and shall not be used in any subsequent legal proceedings as an admission of guilt if such negotiations end without an offer of compensation that is acceptable to both parties.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
this is why senators are NEVER elected president... because they have a voting record... and if you dig enopugh you will find votes that don't seem right... thats why you have to be careful looking at particualr votes... looking at votes with a broader scope is probably the way to go, because when breaking it down to minute details you can find all kinds of weird votes, which i pointed out a few on kucinich's record which do not seem to line up with his stances and beliefs. there are all kinds of reasons to not vote for a bill or to vote for a bill. small things that we do not see when just glancing at it, or just read the title of the bill and jump to conclusions. do i think there should be a cap on interest rates, yes. do i think americans are to blame for using credit too much and living beyond their means, yes. am i going to base my support of Obama on this one bill, no. do i know why he voted the way he did, no. i have seen him explain this a few years ago and i beleiev he said there were things in the bill that he felt were worth voting for, even though he had concerns with some other things, he felt he had to vote for it to secure some of the positives that were bartered and in the bill. votes on senate bills is not always as cut and dry as some would like to make it out. thse bills are HUGE, with many provisions added and subtracted and toyed with to please enough people to get them passed. just remember, polarized hardliners get nothing done in this country and we make no progress whatsoever. you have to be able to compromise some things. it is easy to not compromise on our couch, but as a senator actually tryng to get things done i imagine it is different
This one is actually simpler than all of this - and I've mentioned it many times before. Obama voted against a 30% credit card cap he felt was too high and that it did nothing but sweeten a bad bill. What some people are not mentioning is he voted against the entire bankruptcy bill.
He did the right thing - voted against a bad bill and the attempt to make that same bad bill seem better.
Yet it still ends up in these 'I hate Obama' lists.
This one is actually simpler than all of this - and I've mentioned it many times before. Obama voted against a 30% credit card cap he felt was too high and that it did nothing but sweeten a bad bill. What some people are not mentioning is he voted against the entire bankruptcy bill.
He did the right thing - voted against a bad bill and the attempt to make that same bad bill seem better.
Yet it still ends up in these 'I hate Obama' lists.
that's because even those who consider themselves uber-liberal can get suckered by propaganda & sound bites now & then, too.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
that's because even those who consider themselves uber-liberal can get suckered by propaganda & sound bites now & then, too.
One man's "suckered" is another man's "convinced" - and propaganda is often nothing more than a persuasive argument you don't agree with.
So I'm not going to pin the suckered tag on anyone here (at least not right now - maybe sometime in the future if the mood strikes me, and the mood knows me well enough to do just that). It's just that I've gone through this whole credit card cap argument before [Amendment 31 (Obama - Nay) of Senate bill 256 (Obama - Nay) ], and it obviously didn't make an impression. That's fine. But for the benefit of others, I still feel the need to repeat myself from time to time.
The U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715, expanded federal jurisdiction over many large class-action lawsuits and mass actions taken in the United States.
The bill was the first major legislation in the second term for the Bush Administration. Business groups and tort reform supporters had lobbied for the legislation, arguing that it was needed to prevent class-action lawsuit abuse. [1] President George W. Bush had vowed to support this legislation.
The Act gives federal courts jurisdiction to certain class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and in which any of the members of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, unless at least two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. The Act also directs the Courts to give greater scrutiny to class action settlements, especially those involving coupons.
Critics charged that the legislation would deprive Americans of legal recourse when they were wronged by powerful corporations. Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the bill "the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised."[2]
Critics charge that this bill will make it far more difficult to bring class action suits, and may prolong such litigation, clogging the federal courts' dockets. The act also gives the Federal government the ability to somewhat control, through judicial appointments, outcomes that were previously under state control. No Republican legislators voted against the bill. Critics argue that the expansion of federal jurisdiction comes at the expense of state's rights and federalism, something Republicans have historically protested; however, proponents respond that the bill is consistent with the Framers' original intent for the role of federal courts and diversity jurisdiction expressed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 80.
critics charge? ok, so some peopel have a problem with it? find me a bill where there are zero critics.
i think the critics are dead wrong. all the bill does is actually streamline the class action suit process. if it is over $5 million it is under federal court jurisdiction. if it invloves plaintiffs in multiple states then it falls under federal jurisdiction. which again simply means that a ferderal judge, typically much more qualified and experinced then a state judge, hears the case. can you imagine a state court hearing a $100 million dollar suit with plaintiffs in 20 states? thats a frigin mess. it appears to me, and most, that the bill simply streamlines a messy process. i see no issue here at all. and it does not cap settlements at all. and you can still file suit for anything you want.
This one is actually simpler than all of this - and I've mentioned it many times before. Obama voted against a 30% credit card cap he felt was too high and that it did nothing but sweeten a bad bill. What some people are not mentioning is he voted against the entire bankruptcy bill.
He did the right thing - voted against a bad bill and the attempt to make that same bad bill seem better.
Yet it still ends up in these 'I hate Obama' lists.
thank you. i remember talking about this when it happened and you are exactly right.
if you are going to constantly call me out and ask me to address bullet point concerns about obama then you better know your shit and have some reasons why you have concerns with these bullet points. just putting up "what do you thin about this" isnt going to cut it, why do YOU have these concerns.
i think you will find most of the bullet point concerns you listed are weak at best and grasping for straws
This one is actually simpler than all of this - and I've mentioned it many times before. Obama voted against a 30% credit card cap he felt was too high and that it did nothing but sweeten a bad bill. What some people are not mentioning is he voted against the entire bankruptcy bill.
He did the right thing - voted against a bad bill and the attempt to make that same bad bill seem better.
Yet it still ends up in these 'I hate Obama' lists.
yes, i remember, first you said you just didn't care about the issue b/c it didn't effect you, then you changed to obama was just trying to give us some tough love and now it's settled to he thought 30% was still too high....whatever happened to these baby steps you guys are always talking about?? it seems like if i think 30% is still too high why would i still allow them to charge even more? why wouldn't i make my own bill?
i mean seriously, wtf has obama done??? he's missed a little over 40% of the votes for this current senate, he's done nothing but become senator in a race he ran unopposed in
and i think this is more of an issue than that insider trading shit ppl like to keep pulling up, i guess it doesn't matter that they contradict themselves w/ that very arguement they keep trying to make....but whatever
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
that's because even those who consider themselves uber-liberal can get suckered by propaganda & sound bites now & then, too.
No way.....say it ain't so!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
critics charge? ok, so some peopel have a problem with it? find me a bill where there are zero critics.
i think the critics are dead wrong. all the bill does is actually streamline the class action suit process. if it is over $5 million it is under federal court jurisdiction. if it invloves plaintiffs in multiple states then it falls under federal jurisdiction. which again simply means that a ferderal judge, typically much more qualified and experinced then a state judge, hears the case. can you imagine a state court hearing a $100 million dollar suit with plaintiffs in 20 states? thats a frigin mess. it appears to me, and most, that the bill simply streamlines a messy process. i see no issue here at all. and it does not cap settlements at all. and you can still file suit for anything you want.
next
it also 'contradicts the framers’ intent that the federal government
consists of only limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary
should only usurp state judicial power when there are serious national
interests at stake.
The main reason the framers chose to include federal diversity
jurisdiction in Article III was to prevent state courts from exercising
prejudice against out-of-state litigants.291 None of the rationales that
Congress chose to justify the need for CAFA implicate this policy
concern.292
287.'
'But there is no reason why a nationwide class action against an out-ofstate
defendant based on state laws cannot be fairly adjudicated by a state
trial judge.298 Prejudice against out-of-state litigants should not be a
significant issue, considering the fact that nationwide classes by definition
must fairly represent the nationwide class’s interests. Furthermore, judicial
economy favors the resolution of nationwide class claims in one court
proceeding, rather than fifty different proceedings in fifty different states.'
'CAFA’s effect is to create exclusive federal jurisdiction over some statelaw
based interstate class actions.301 Consequently, CAFA effectively
strips the state judiciary of its authority to create and interpret state laws
governing some kinds of class actions.302 CAFA'
and 'In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the Court held that it is
unconstitutional for federal courts sitting in diversity to create substantive
common law,18 stating that neither Congress nor the federal courts have the
“power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a tate.”19 Consequently,'
substantive law.20
Because CAFA is based on diversity jurisdiction, state substantive law
will govern all of the class actions under its purview.21 However, because
CAFA restricts jurisdiction over these class actions exclusively to federal
court, the federal courts will lack applicable state law and be forced to develop a federal common law of class actions.22 Accordingly, CAFA will
force federal courts to violate the core constitutional holding of Erie
because the federal courts do not have any constitutional authority to create
substantive law.23
Erie also established the proposition that the Rules of Decision Act
requires federal courts to apply state law, including state judicial decisions,
as the rules of decision in all U.S. courts.24 Because CAFA, in practice,
removes the state court system’s jurisdiction over some state law class
actions, state courts will be unable to create state decisional case law.
Consequently, CAFA may force federal judges to create and apply federal
“rules of decision” in diversity class actions, which transgresses both the
Rules of Decision Act and the Court’s holding in Erie.25
III. CONGRESS IMPROPERLY PASSED CAFA CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLES OF
DEMOCRACY, FEDERALISM, AND THE ERIE DOCTRINE
This section adopts the views of CAFA’s critics. Part III.A first argues
that Congress acted inappropriately in passing a procedural statute intended
to affect substantive reform. Next, Part III.B contends that CAFA’s broad
expansion of federal jurisdiction over minimally diverse interstate class
actions exceeds the traditional policy basis for diversity jurisdiction. Part
III.C then asserts that CAFA will compel federal courts to create federal
common law, which violates the Court’s holding in Erie. Finally, Part III.D
closes with an example of a hypothetical class action that illustrates how
CAFA will, in practice, cause the aforementioned problems to arise.
you should read that fordham law review piece on it...especially sections 2 and 3
and it's funny you tell me i better know my shit when you don't know anything about the subject to begin w/!!!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i thought obama didn't take money from these ppl? then i thought that changed to he's only taken less than $200,000 from them total...why does his story change? like when he kept saying in the primaries that lobbyists wouldn't have jobs in his white house then months later when pressed what he really meant was they won't dominate his white house.....yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah, i guess obama is the first honest politician, ever! :rolleyes: except for that slight issue of him saying on tv his campaign chair wasn't a pharmaceutical lobbyist when he is....i guess he forgot....?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
One man's "suckered" is another man's "convinced" - and propaganda is often nothing more than a persuasive argument you don't agree with.
So I'm not going to pin the suckered tag on anyone here (at least not right now - maybe sometime in the future if the mood strikes me, and the mood knows me well enough to do just that). It's just that I've gone through this whole credit card cap argument before [Amendment 31 (Obama - Nay) of Senate bill 256 (Obama - Nay) ], and it obviously didn't make an impression. That's fine. But for the benefit of others, I still feel the need to repeat myself from time to time.
I feel it is somewhat naive to think that Obama's vote has nothing to do with his contributors.
They always say follow the money trail.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
* Question: On Passage of the Bill
* Bill: S 5
* Vote description: S. 5; Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
* Vote type: 1/2 (Help)
A simple majority of those present and voting is required for approval or passage.
* Result: Passed, 72-26, with 2 not voting.
* Date/time: February 10, 2005, 3:03 p.m.
* Republican majority opinion: Yes (Help)
The position of more than 50 percent of voting Republicans. "None" means an equal split between "Yes" and "No."
* Democrat majority opinion: No (Help)
The position of more than 50 percent of voting Democrats. "None" means an equal split between "Yes" and "No."
Key Vote Analysis
This bill sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts. The bill was backed by the White House and business groups as an essential tort reform measure that would reduce what they said was a debilitating number of frivolous lawsuits. A Washington Post report said proponents believed that moving the suits to federal court would lead to "more rational and more consistent rulings."
The bill was opposed by consumer advocacy groups and trial lawyers who argued that many valid claims against corporations would be dismissed, leaving consumers without legal recourse.
The bill passed both the Senate and House by large margins and was signed into law by the president on Feb. 18, 2005.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
it also 'contradicts the framers’ intent that the federal government
consists of only limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary
should only usurp state judicial power when there are serious national
interests at stake.
The main reason the framers chose to include federal diversity
jurisdiction in Article III was to prevent state courts from exercising
prejudice against out-of-state litigants.291 None of the rationales that
Congress chose to justify the need for CAFA implicate this policy
concern.292
287.'
'But there is no reason why a nationwide class action against an out-ofstate
defendant based on state laws cannot be fairly adjudicated by a state
trial judge.298 Prejudice against out-of-state litigants should not be a
significant issue, considering the fact that nationwide classes by definition
must fairly represent the nationwide class’s interests. Furthermore, judicial
economy favors the resolution of nationwide class claims in one court
proceeding, rather than fifty different proceedings in fifty different states.'
'CAFA’s effect is to create exclusive federal jurisdiction over some statelaw
based interstate class actions.301 Consequently, CAFA effectively
strips the state judiciary of its authority to create and interpret state laws
governing some kinds of class actions.302 CAFA'
and 'In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the Court held that it is
unconstitutional for federal courts sitting in diversity to create substantive
common law,18 stating that neither Congress nor the federal courts have the
“power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a tate.”19 Consequently,'
substantive law.20
Because CAFA is based on diversity jurisdiction, state substantive law
will govern all of the class actions under its purview.21 However, because
CAFA restricts jurisdiction over these class actions exclusively to federal
court, the federal courts will lack applicable state law and be forced to develop a federal common law of class actions.22 Accordingly, CAFA will
force federal courts to violate the core constitutional holding of Erie
because the federal courts do not have any constitutional authority to create
substantive law.23
Erie also established the proposition that the Rules of Decision Act
requires federal courts to apply state law, including state judicial decisions,
as the rules of decision in all U.S. courts.24 Because CAFA, in practice,
removes the state court system’s jurisdiction over some state law class
actions, state courts will be unable to create state decisional case law.
Consequently, CAFA may force federal judges to create and apply federal
“rules of decision” in diversity class actions, which transgresses both the
Rules of Decision Act and the Court’s holding in Erie.25
III. CONGRESS IMPROPERLY PASSED CAFA CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLES OF
DEMOCRACY, FEDERALISM, AND THE ERIE DOCTRINE
This section adopts the views of CAFA’s critics. Part III.A first argues
that Congress acted inappropriately in passing a procedural statute intended
to affect substantive reform. Next, Part III.B contends that CAFA’s broad
expansion of federal jurisdiction over minimally diverse interstate class
actions exceeds the traditional policy basis for diversity jurisdiction. Part
III.C then asserts that CAFA will compel federal courts to create federal
common law, which violates the Court’s holding in Erie. Finally, Part III.D
closes with an example of a hypothetical class action that illustrates how
CAFA will, in practice, cause the aforementioned problems to arise.
you should read that fordham law review piece on it...especially sections 2 and 3
and it's funny you tell me i better know my shit when you don't know anything about the subject to begin w/!!!
i dont read anything in their that i have a problem with... so you are using states rights to say this is a bad law? so you want to go back to states rights? so it is ok for north dakota to outlaw abortion? or mississippi to go back to forced segregation...
look, i work with the courst alot and know a little about how it works... a federal judge is the cream of the crop... they ahve to have experience and a crystal clear record to get that promotion... all it does is treamlines the process so some backwater state judge in indiaina is not presiding over a $300 million dollar lawsuit that invloves 14,000 plaintiffs from 38 states.
i could be wrong, but thats all i get from the bill. i think it is actualy a good bill. on a side note do you have any clue how many lawsuits are filed a day in this country? 99% of them are horseshit, but you can still file them and they have to be at least reviewed. anyway to streamline that process, again for only suits of $5 million and cases involving multiple plaintiffs in multiple states, seems like a good idea to me.
why are you so much more confident in a state's civil system and judge over the federal civil system and judiciary?
i tell you right now, i would rather have my suit heard in federal court.
The bill was opposed by consumer advocacy groups and trial lawyers who argued that many valid claims against corporations would be dismissed, leaving consumers without legal recourse.
how do they say that is going to happen? they just say that and i assume they are right?
what do you feel is so superior about a state civil action versus a federal civil action? what makes you so much more confident in a state level judge deciding the case versus a federal judge?
i dont read anything in their that i have a problem with... so you are using states rights to say this is a bad law? so you want to go back to states rights? so it is ok for north dakota to outlaw abortion? or mississippi to go back to forced segregation...
look, i work with the courst alot and know a little about how it works... a federal judge is the cream of the crop... they ahve to have experience and a crystal clear record to get that promotion... all it does is treamlines the process so some backwater state judge in indiaina is not presiding over a $300 million dollar lawsuit that invloves 14,000 plaintiffs from 38 states.
i could be wrong, but thats all i get from the bill. i think it is actualy a good bill. on a side note do you have any clue how many lawsuits are filed a day in this country? 99% of them are horseshit, but you can still file them and they have to be at least reviewed. anyway to streamline that process, again for only suits of $5 million and cases involving multiple plaintiffs in multiple states, seems like a good idea to me.
why are you so much more confident in a state's civil system and judge over the federal civil system and judiciary?
i tell you right now, i would rather have my suit heard in federal court.
federal courts aren't as accountable, the ultimate federal court said stop the recount and stop looking into all those ppl who were wrongly prevented from voting for crimes they committed in the future!
February 18, 2005
President Bush today signed legislation restricting consumers' rights to file class action suits against corporations, the first of a series of business-backed bills intended to put consumers in their place.
Signing the bill into law at the White House, President Bush called it "a practical way to begin restoring common sense and balance to the U.S. legal system."
The measure will "help protect people who are wrongfully harmed while reducing the frivolous lawsuits that clog our courts, hurt the economy, cost jobs and burden American businesses," Bush said.
The measure was opposed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the organization of all federal judges, who said it would further clog federal courts.
While big business is jubilant, consumer organizations are outraged. A tobacco industry analyst put it bluntly: "The practical effect of the change could be that many cases will never be heard."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California called it "an injustice to consumers, and a windfall for irresponsible corporations."
"When Americans are injured or even killed by Vioxx or Celebrex or discriminated against by Wal-Mart, they may never get their day in court," Pelosi said. "Those cases that do go forward will take significantly longer because the federal courts are overburdened and unequipped for this caseload. That is why the bill is opposed by federal judges, including the Judicial Conference of the United States."
"Special interests have even admitted that the real intent of this bill is to clog the federal courts and therefore stop the cases," she said.
The Bush Administration and its big-business backers hope to follow up with legislation that would cap damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. Another bill would shut down asbestos litigation, as Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) noted in arguing against the class action measure.
"Today we will attempt to pre-empt state class action," Conyers said. "Next month we will take up a bankruptcy bill that massively tilts the playing field in favor of credit card companies and against ordinary consumers and workers alike.
�On deck are equally one-sided medical malpractice bills and asbestos bills that both cap damages and eliminate liability to protect some of the most egregious wrongdoing in America," said Conyers, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been leading the charge to curb citizens' right to sue. It spent $24.5 million last year lobbying the issue. Credit-card issuer MBNA, which last year passed Enron as the Bush campaign's biggest contributor, also backed the measure.
Consumer Reaction
Congressional passage of the class action bill is "a significant vote against consumers' rights," said Consumer Federation of America Assistant General Counsel Rachel Weintraub.
"This legislation essentially denies consumers access to a uniquely important legal tool against corporate wrongdoing. Class actions enable consumers who were harmed in similar ways to aggregate their claims into one case," Weintraub said.
"The bill also undermines the ability of state courts to hear cases primarily concerned with their own citizens. S. 5 is unfair to consumers and we applaud those courageous 149 Representatives who opposed this inequitable bill," Weintraub said.
She said that although the bill purports to curtail "class action abuses," it "virtually wipes out state class actions, thereby removing what is sometimes the only venue for redress of injury or fraud for consumers."
Weintraub said the bill makes it more difficult for consumers to obtain effective and efficient judicial relief for injuries, for example, caused by defective products, fraud in the marketplace, or discrimination. The jurisdictional changes mandated by S. 5 are "designed solely to impede class actions, not to make them fairer or more efficient," she said.
As Obama-mania sweeps across the land and has Democrats everywhere buzzing, I find myself a bit wary of it all. Not that I'm a single-issue voter, but when it comes to civil justice issues, Illinois senator Barack Obama is a bust. His willingness to buy the corporate line about class action "reform" last year prevents me from joining the hallelujah chorus.
The 2005 Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a pet cause of George W. Bush, essentially forced most state consumer class actions into the backlogged and Republican dominated federal courts. Like the bankruptcy bill before it, class action reform was a special interest extravaganza, with the insurance, credit card, banking, pharmaceutical and auto industries hiring so many lobbyists that there was nearly one for every member of Congress. (You can read more about some of the chicanery involved in selling CAFA in my book.)
Obama's state was also the focus of intense media campaigns surrounding the bill sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But when the bill came up for a vote, Obama's fellow Illinois democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin, didn't cave. Potential presidential rival Hillary Clinton voted against the bill. Even John Kerry, who went on national television during the 2004 presidential debates and said, "John Edwards and I support tort reform," voted against this bill.
So what's up with Obama? No surprise here, but maybe it's the $2 million in campaign contributions he got from law and lobbying firms that represent many of the big business interests behind the bill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he got $60,000 from Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw, the heavyweight lobbying firm whose partners reportedly helped write CAFA. Obama also got $70,000 from Sidley Austin, home of the notorious Dan Troy, the former FDA general counsel who used his government perch to help drug companies win lawsuits filed by injured consumers.
Obviously the class action vote was just one among many, but I do find it telling. Either Obama didn't fully understand the implications of the bill for consumers (who may be shut out of court when they're ripped off for relatively small amounts of money), or he was voting with an eye on the White House and courting future campaign contributors in the business world. Neither scenario gets me especially excited about the Democratic Party's new rock star.
..................
so, yeah....i'll take their words for it over big business, like you are apparently so willing to do....can you show me some things stating how this has been a great help to ppl seeking justice to corporate abuses, wrongdoings, fraud....?
the little guy stands to have a fairer shot at a state level where that judge is accountable to the ppl of that district rather than some federally appointed judge
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Comments
works fine for me. I could do without hearing how tired and lame you think I am. And I'll be sure to keep any insults about you to myself, as well.
This should work out nicely.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
not you personaly, at all, just the constant anti obama propaganda... that is lame and tired
your cool in my book, as is kabong
that's good to know.
Im just asking, especially after what you just posted in the other thread, to lay off remarks about how tired, unfunny, lame or whatever other adjective you have used and simply address the topic or ignore it since that's what you wish us to do towards you also. Because we are going to post what we wanna and you will continue to post what you wanna. I can think you're pro-obama threads are lame, tired, getting old...what have you but I will address the content of your threads if I disagree and not insult you for posting it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
bullshit, there used to be a lot of conservatives here who supported the war...but as teh war fell apart and became a collossal waste they left, went to other sections, stopped supporting bush....
and are there even any mccain supporters here?
we see wrong as wrong, it's not dependent on party affiliation
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i have posted 1, months ago...
Hail, Hail!!!
i have gone over the voting for funds for the war. he has consistently urged withdrawl voted yes on votes for withdrawl that were VETO'd by Bush. the house didnt have enough votes to even get it back to the senate to try and over turn the veto
i have no problem with it at all really... i dont have that big of a problem with the biull. all it does really is say that a federal judge will preside over class action suits over $5 million or where plaintiffs are from different states. i see no problem with that. i dont want a state judging deciding a $300 million dollar case, and believe me i know state judges.
i like the idea of SPNI... but i am not dead set against other ideas and forms of universal healthcare/insurance. i actually like Obama's quasi mix of the current system mixed with universal to meet the needs of everyone, WITHOUT MANDATES. i do believe at one time he was a fan of single payer, but faced with the reality if the current system he may have moved slightly, tinkering, to come up with a plan for universal coverage. for instance, i have great insurance provided by my employer. that is part of my benefits package, which i enjoy. so i dont NEED that to be changed currently. down the road i would like to see a complete single payer system, but i do believe that this will take some time and we need to get headed in that general direction. which i believe that is what Obamas plan does. a major shift in direction, without doing a complete u-turn in one spin of the wheel. which in this country, may be the ONLY damn way to get something done. everyone thinks their way is the only way, and we end up where we are. polarized.
i have no problem with his support of nucleaer power for energy purposes. have you fileld your tank lately? he is also not the champion of nuclear power either, that has been blown way out of proportion just like anything that comes up about him at this point. he has the worlds largest magnifying glass onhim at all times. but anyway,he has said that he is anti nuclear weapon and said that we must try and rid the planet of nuclear arms, including ours. that is a dymanic shift from the current administration. do i wish we could get rid of it and move to solar/wind tommorow. FUCK YES, but that tales time as well... so we need to utilize what we have available now, or everyone needs to radicly change their lifestyle. we can all turn off our computers if you want, but that means you have to do it too. i have no problem with his donations from the nuclear industry
illegal immigratiuon was allowed to become a problem under this administartion, for cheap domestic labor. understaffed and poorly executed border security has created a problem. i dont consider anyone "illegal", however i recognize the problems it causes. so the wall, i am typically against any kind of wall or barrier between people... but talk to the people that are on that border and they love it... so what the hell, who knows, i am an idealist... however he does suppprt "illegals" rights, drivers licenses for instance and medical care and education... how do you feel about his OPEN support of drivers licenses?
this is why senators are NEVER elected president... because they have a voting record... and if you dig enopugh you will find votes that don't seem right... thats why you have to be careful looking at particualr votes... looking at votes with a broader scope is probably the way to go, because when breaking it down to minute details you can find all kinds of weird votes, which i pointed out a few on kucinich's record which do not seem to line up with his stances and beliefs. there are all kinds of reasons to not vote for a bill or to vote for a bill. small things that we do not see when just glancing at it, or just read the title of the bill and jump to conclusions. do i think there should be a cap on interest rates, yes. do i think americans are to blame for using credit too much and living beyond their means, yes. am i going to base my support of Obama on this one bill, no. do i know why he voted the way he did, no. i have seen him explain this a few years ago and i beleiev he said there were things in the bill that he felt were worth voting for, even though he had concerns with some other things, he felt he had to vote for it to secure some of the positives that were bartered and in the bill. votes on senate bills is not always as cut and dry as some would like to make it out. thse bills are HUGE, with many provisions added and subtracted and toyed with to please enough people to get them passed. just remember, polarized hardliners get nothing done in this country and we make no progress whatsoever. you have to be able to compromise some things. it is easy to not compromise on our couch, but as a senator actually tryng to get things done i imagine it is different
he co-sponsored with clinton... but anyway, i see know problem wit this bill? what are your concerns?
i have to be honest, i dont know anything about the bill. but i do think it passed? help me out a little, cliff notes version
"weak" is your opinion... maybe you want to refine that or point out your concerns...
"doublespeak" is your opinion... what article by the way?
he has also said he supports a palestinian state... thats one of those where the hardcore lefty's take an inch and make it a mile... even mentioning Israel makes you a war monger in some circles, or so it seems... which i am not in that crowd... i am looking for reasonable solutions to the problem, not hardliners on either side, frankly
thats the quick version
why do i waste my time
I've been talking to you about this through pm.
To be honest, I don't even like debating you on the board anymore because you lose your cool and start flipping out.
I think it's better for us to reply to one another in pm's from here on out....for now anyways.
peace
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I have made myself more than clear on these issues time and time again. Go find the pandering 101 thread kabong started...a lot of it was addressed in there. I don't feel like repeating myself right now and us end up bickering again...it gets outta control and makes me uncomfortable.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
CAFA?
National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005?
well, i had a longer post w/ more links but i didn't hit remember me and it is lost....so here's a link for each w/ a cliff notes version of complaint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_Action_Fairness_Act_of_2005
The U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-1715, expanded federal jurisdiction over many large class-action lawsuits and mass actions taken in the United States.
The bill was the first major legislation in the second term for the Bush Administration. Business groups and tort reform supporters had lobbied for the legislation, arguing that it was needed to prevent class-action lawsuit abuse. [1] President George W. Bush had vowed to support this legislation.
The Act gives federal courts jurisdiction to certain class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and in which any of the members of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, unless at least two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed. The Act also directs the Courts to give greater scrutiny to class action settlements, especially those involving coupons.
Critics charged that the legislation would deprive Americans of legal recourse when they were wronged by powerful corporations. Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the bill "the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised."[2]
Critics charge that this bill will make it far more difficult to bring class action suits, and may prolong such litigation, clogging the federal courts' dockets. The act also gives the Federal government the ability to somewhat control, through judicial appointments, outcomes that were previously under state control. No Republican legislators voted against the bill. Critics argue that the expansion of federal jurisdiction comes at the expense of state's rights and federalism, something Republicans have historically protested; however, proponents respond that the bill is consistent with the Framers' original intent for the role of federal courts and diversity jurisdiction expressed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 80.
there are also some good links in the further reading part including a piece by a professor at the UCLA school of Law, Fordham Law Review, caselaw and law.com
and i believe it set a limit on how much could be awarded, but could be wrong
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-1784
For example, a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, the University of Michigan Health System, and the private insurer Copic Insurance Company in Colorado have adopted such policies and have reported significantly decreased legal expenses and smaller claim payouts.
(B) An agreement that any apology or expression of remorse by a doctor or other designated health care provider at any time during the negotiations shall be kept confidential and shall not be used in any subsequent legal proceedings as an admission of guilt if such negotiations end without an offer of compensation that is acceptable to both parties.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
He did the right thing - voted against a bad bill and the attempt to make that same bad bill seem better.
Yet it still ends up in these 'I hate Obama' lists.
that's because even those who consider themselves uber-liberal can get suckered by propaganda & sound bites now & then, too.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
So I'm not going to pin the suckered tag on anyone here (at least not right now - maybe sometime in the future if the mood strikes me, and the mood knows me well enough to do just that). It's just that I've gone through this whole credit card cap argument before [Amendment 31 (Obama - Nay) of Senate bill 256 (Obama - Nay) ], and it obviously didn't make an impression. That's fine. But for the benefit of others, I still feel the need to repeat myself from time to time.
critics charge? ok, so some peopel have a problem with it? find me a bill where there are zero critics.
i think the critics are dead wrong. all the bill does is actually streamline the class action suit process. if it is over $5 million it is under federal court jurisdiction. if it invloves plaintiffs in multiple states then it falls under federal jurisdiction. which again simply means that a ferderal judge, typically much more qualified and experinced then a state judge, hears the case. can you imagine a state court hearing a $100 million dollar suit with plaintiffs in 20 states? thats a frigin mess. it appears to me, and most, that the bill simply streamlines a messy process. i see no issue here at all. and it does not cap settlements at all. and you can still file suit for anything you want.
next
thank you. i remember talking about this when it happened and you are exactly right.
i think you will find most of the bullet point concerns you listed are weak at best and grasping for straws
yes, i remember, first you said you just didn't care about the issue b/c it didn't effect you, then you changed to obama was just trying to give us some tough love and now it's settled to he thought 30% was still too high....whatever happened to these baby steps you guys are always talking about?? it seems like if i think 30% is still too high why would i still allow them to charge even more? why wouldn't i make my own bill?
i mean seriously, wtf has obama done??? he's missed a little over 40% of the votes for this current senate, he's done nothing but become senator in a race he ran unopposed in
and i think this is more of an issue than that insider trading shit ppl like to keep pulling up, i guess it doesn't matter that they contradict themselves w/ that very arguement they keep trying to make....but whatever
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
No way.....say it ain't so!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
it also 'contradicts the framers’ intent that the federal government
consists of only limited and enumerated powers. The federal judiciary
should only usurp state judicial power when there are serious national
interests at stake.
The main reason the framers chose to include federal diversity
jurisdiction in Article III was to prevent state courts from exercising
prejudice against out-of-state litigants.291 None of the rationales that
Congress chose to justify the need for CAFA implicate this policy
concern.292
287.'
'But there is no reason why a nationwide class action against an out-ofstate
defendant based on state laws cannot be fairly adjudicated by a state
trial judge.298 Prejudice against out-of-state litigants should not be a
significant issue, considering the fact that nationwide classes by definition
must fairly represent the nationwide class’s interests. Furthermore, judicial
economy favors the resolution of nationwide class claims in one court
proceeding, rather than fifty different proceedings in fifty different states.'
'CAFA’s effect is to create exclusive federal jurisdiction over some statelaw
based interstate class actions.301 Consequently, CAFA effectively
strips the state judiciary of its authority to create and interpret state laws
governing some kinds of class actions.302 CAFA'
and 'In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the Court held that it is
unconstitutional for federal courts sitting in diversity to create substantive
common law,18 stating that neither Congress nor the federal courts have the
“power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a
tate.”19 Consequently,'
substantive law.20
Because CAFA is based on diversity jurisdiction, state substantive law
will govern all of the class actions under its purview.21 However, because
CAFA restricts jurisdiction over these class actions exclusively to federal
court, the federal courts will lack applicable state law and be forced to develop a federal common law of class actions.22 Accordingly, CAFA will
force federal courts to violate the core constitutional holding of Erie
because the federal courts do not have any constitutional authority to create
substantive law.23
Erie also established the proposition that the Rules of Decision Act
requires federal courts to apply state law, including state judicial decisions,
as the rules of decision in all U.S. courts.24 Because CAFA, in practice,
removes the state court system’s jurisdiction over some state law class
actions, state courts will be unable to create state decisional case law.
Consequently, CAFA may force federal judges to create and apply federal
“rules of decision” in diversity class actions, which transgresses both the
Rules of Decision Act and the Court’s holding in Erie.25
III. CONGRESS IMPROPERLY PASSED CAFA CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLES OF
DEMOCRACY, FEDERALISM, AND THE ERIE DOCTRINE
This section adopts the views of CAFA’s critics. Part III.A first argues
that Congress acted inappropriately in passing a procedural statute intended
to affect substantive reform. Next, Part III.B contends that CAFA’s broad
expansion of federal jurisdiction over minimally diverse interstate class
actions exceeds the traditional policy basis for diversity jurisdiction. Part
III.C then asserts that CAFA will compel federal courts to create federal
common law, which violates the Court’s holding in Erie. Finally, Part III.D
closes with an example of a hypothetical class action that illustrates how
CAFA will, in practice, cause the aforementioned problems to arise.
you should read that fordham law review piece on it...especially sections 2 and 3
and it's funny you tell me i better know my shit when you don't know anything about the subject to begin w/!!!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i'm sure it had nothing to do w/ all the money he received from the credit card industry?
here's something interesting....look at obama's top contributers:
http://opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?CID=N00009638
and compare them to Kucinich's
http://opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?CID=N00003572
i thought obama didn't take money from these ppl? then i thought that changed to he's only taken less than $200,000 from them total...why does his story change? like when he kept saying in the primaries that lobbyists wouldn't have jobs in his white house then months later when pressed what he really meant was they won't dominate his white house.....yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah, i guess obama is the first honest politician, ever! :rolleyes: except for that slight issue of him saying on tv his campaign chair wasn't a pharmaceutical lobbyist when he is....i guess he forgot....?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I feel it is somewhat naive to think that Obama's vote has nothing to do with his contributors.
They always say follow the money trail.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
109th Congress / Senate / 1st session / Vote 9
* Question: On Passage of the Bill
* Bill: S 5
* Vote description: S. 5; Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
* Vote type: 1/2 (Help)
A simple majority of those present and voting is required for approval or passage.
* Result: Passed, 72-26, with 2 not voting.
* Date/time: February 10, 2005, 3:03 p.m.
* Republican majority opinion: Yes (Help)
The position of more than 50 percent of voting Republicans. "None" means an equal split between "Yes" and "No."
* Democrat majority opinion: No (Help)
The position of more than 50 percent of voting Democrats. "None" means an equal split between "Yes" and "No."
Key Vote Analysis
This bill sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts. The bill was backed by the White House and business groups as an essential tort reform measure that would reduce what they said was a debilitating number of frivolous lawsuits. A Washington Post report said proponents believed that moving the suits to federal court would lead to "more rational and more consistent rulings."
The bill was opposed by consumer advocacy groups and trial lawyers who argued that many valid claims against corporations would be dismissed, leaving consumers without legal recourse.
The bill passed both the Senate and House by large margins and was signed into law by the president on Feb. 18, 2005.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i dont read anything in their that i have a problem with... so you are using states rights to say this is a bad law? so you want to go back to states rights? so it is ok for north dakota to outlaw abortion? or mississippi to go back to forced segregation...
look, i work with the courst alot and know a little about how it works... a federal judge is the cream of the crop... they ahve to have experience and a crystal clear record to get that promotion... all it does is treamlines the process so some backwater state judge in indiaina is not presiding over a $300 million dollar lawsuit that invloves 14,000 plaintiffs from 38 states.
i could be wrong, but thats all i get from the bill. i think it is actualy a good bill. on a side note do you have any clue how many lawsuits are filed a day in this country? 99% of them are horseshit, but you can still file them and they have to be at least reviewed. anyway to streamline that process, again for only suits of $5 million and cases involving multiple plaintiffs in multiple states, seems like a good idea to me.
why are you so much more confident in a state's civil system and judge over the federal civil system and judiciary?
i tell you right now, i would rather have my suit heard in federal court.
how do they say that is going to happen? they just say that and i assume they are right?
what do you feel is so superior about a state civil action versus a federal civil action? what makes you so much more confident in a state level judge deciding the case versus a federal judge?
federal courts aren't as accountable, the ultimate federal court said stop the recount and stop looking into all those ppl who were wrongly prevented from voting for crimes they committed in the future!
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/class_action_bush.html
Bush Signs Class Action Bill
February 18, 2005
President Bush today signed legislation restricting consumers' rights to file class action suits against corporations, the first of a series of business-backed bills intended to put consumers in their place.
Signing the bill into law at the White House, President Bush called it "a practical way to begin restoring common sense and balance to the U.S. legal system."
The measure will "help protect people who are wrongfully harmed while reducing the frivolous lawsuits that clog our courts, hurt the economy, cost jobs and burden American businesses," Bush said.
The measure was opposed by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the organization of all federal judges, who said it would further clog federal courts.
While big business is jubilant, consumer organizations are outraged. A tobacco industry analyst put it bluntly: "The practical effect of the change could be that many cases will never be heard."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California called it "an injustice to consumers, and a windfall for irresponsible corporations."
"When Americans are injured or even killed by Vioxx or Celebrex or discriminated against by Wal-Mart, they may never get their day in court," Pelosi said. "Those cases that do go forward will take significantly longer because the federal courts are overburdened and unequipped for this caseload. That is why the bill is opposed by federal judges, including the Judicial Conference of the United States."
"Special interests have even admitted that the real intent of this bill is to clog the federal courts and therefore stop the cases," she said.
The Bush Administration and its big-business backers hope to follow up with legislation that would cap damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. Another bill would shut down asbestos litigation, as Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) noted in arguing against the class action measure.
"Today we will attempt to pre-empt state class action," Conyers said. "Next month we will take up a bankruptcy bill that massively tilts the playing field in favor of credit card companies and against ordinary consumers and workers alike.
�On deck are equally one-sided medical malpractice bills and asbestos bills that both cap damages and eliminate liability to protect some of the most egregious wrongdoing in America," said Conyers, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been leading the charge to curb citizens' right to sue. It spent $24.5 million last year lobbying the issue. Credit-card issuer MBNA, which last year passed Enron as the Bush campaign's biggest contributor, also backed the measure.
Consumer Reaction
Congressional passage of the class action bill is "a significant vote against consumers' rights," said Consumer Federation of America Assistant General Counsel Rachel Weintraub.
"This legislation essentially denies consumers access to a uniquely important legal tool against corporate wrongdoing. Class actions enable consumers who were harmed in similar ways to aggregate their claims into one case," Weintraub said.
"The bill also undermines the ability of state courts to hear cases primarily concerned with their own citizens. S. 5 is unfair to consumers and we applaud those courageous 149 Representatives who opposed this inequitable bill," Weintraub said.
She said that although the bill purports to curtail "class action abuses," it "virtually wipes out state class actions, thereby removing what is sometimes the only venue for redress of injury or fraud for consumers."
Weintraub said the bill makes it more difficult for consumers to obtain effective and efficient judicial relief for injuries, for example, caused by defective products, fraud in the marketplace, or discrimination. The jurisdictional changes mandated by S. 5 are "designed solely to impede class actions, not to make them fairer or more efficient," she said.
and
http://www.thetortellini.com/2006/12/obamas_anticons.html
Obama's anti-consumer vote
As Obama-mania sweeps across the land and has Democrats everywhere buzzing, I find myself a bit wary of it all. Not that I'm a single-issue voter, but when it comes to civil justice issues, Illinois senator Barack Obama is a bust. His willingness to buy the corporate line about class action "reform" last year prevents me from joining the hallelujah chorus.
The 2005 Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), a pet cause of George W. Bush, essentially forced most state consumer class actions into the backlogged and Republican dominated federal courts. Like the bankruptcy bill before it, class action reform was a special interest extravaganza, with the insurance, credit card, banking, pharmaceutical and auto industries hiring so many lobbyists that there was nearly one for every member of Congress. (You can read more about some of the chicanery involved in selling CAFA in my book.)
Obama's state was also the focus of intense media campaigns surrounding the bill sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But when the bill came up for a vote, Obama's fellow Illinois democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin, didn't cave. Potential presidential rival Hillary Clinton voted against the bill. Even John Kerry, who went on national television during the 2004 presidential debates and said, "John Edwards and I support tort reform," voted against this bill.
So what's up with Obama? No surprise here, but maybe it's the $2 million in campaign contributions he got from law and lobbying firms that represent many of the big business interests behind the bill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he got $60,000 from Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw, the heavyweight lobbying firm whose partners reportedly helped write CAFA. Obama also got $70,000 from Sidley Austin, home of the notorious Dan Troy, the former FDA general counsel who used his government perch to help drug companies win lawsuits filed by injured consumers.
Obviously the class action vote was just one among many, but I do find it telling. Either Obama didn't fully understand the implications of the bill for consumers (who may be shut out of court when they're ripped off for relatively small amounts of money), or he was voting with an eye on the White House and courting future campaign contributors in the business world. Neither scenario gets me especially excited about the Democratic Party's new rock star.
..................
so, yeah....i'll take their words for it over big business, like you are apparently so willing to do....can you show me some things stating how this has been a great help to ppl seeking justice to corporate abuses, wrongdoings, fraud....?
the little guy stands to have a fairer shot at a state level where that judge is accountable to the ppl of that district rather than some federally appointed judge
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way