Just watched "Hot Coffee" on HBO...a must see about corporations and tort reform.

Very intense. You think you know about the McDonald's case? You don't know jack. The show went far beyond the Mickey D's case; that was just the set up. It got into corporations buying judges, binding arbitration, Halliburton. A must see if ever there was one.

I know the McDonalds case is a terrible(but commonly used) example of the need for tort reform. Recommend.

It makes me sick how corporate America is allowed to get away with this. I'm making sure I educate everyone on who the Chamber of Commerce really are, nothing but lobbyist for the corporate, a lot of people do not know that.

Absolutely sick and well-told story about the corruption of the Legislative Branch by the GOP reactionaries. For example, the Chamber of Commerce sank big money into buying state supreme courts. Now they side with the corporations over the little guy.

A must-see documentary. I'm a gonna TiVo the thing.

well worth the watch if you can catch it. I'll probably watch it again, there's SO much in there to learn about and pay attention to

starts spouting the CANNED PACK O'LIES about the civil judicial system I have a severe case of internet hives.

be an amazing President?

:applause:

Hellfuckinyeah!

I haven't liked what I've seen in the last 10 years during judge elections, the ads have been awful and very misleading.

I really don't think we should be electing judges. It should be a position that is worked up too and appointed and approved. Just like Supremes are chosen for the Federal Court.

:hi:

Even covered a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Jamie Lee Jones, of Houston, was drugged and gang raped by a group of Halliburton employees. She could not sue criminally or civilly because of binding arbitration clauses in her employment contract. Al Franken was questioning her.

It pointed out that if arbitrators do not rule for the corporation and against the consumer, they are blacklisted and not employed. And caps on damages mean that the handicapped boy in the movie (brain damaged at birth because the doctor did not do an immediate c-section, and oxygen deprivation ensued) will be a burden on the taxpayers on Medicaid when the money runs out.

It went into the astroturf groups run by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who use large amounts of money to install judges who are pro-business and anti-consumer. The main example was the defeat and prosecution (with two acquittals in Federal court) of Oliver Diaz, formerly on the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Fighting for progressive values in such conditions is essentially pointless; I'm glad I'm leaving this destroyed country.

The solution to a frivolous lawsuit is for: a)a good attorney will not take a dog case; b) If the judge finds that there is no issue of law brought by the plaintiff, the judge grants a summary judgment to the Defense. Problem solved.

Also, the doctors do not police themselves properly. They do not suspend the doctors who are committing malpractice. The insurance companies promised the doctors that their malpractice premiums would go down if tort reform was enacted. They didn't. So the insurance companies are making more money off the doctors.

Furthermore, with a disabled person and caps on damages, the disabled person becomes a burden on the taxpayers on Medicaid when the money runs out from the judgment.

I am a lawyer and I was a court reporter for twenty years.

Can't come fast enough.

The tax payers are forced to pick up the tab for his medical bills because of caps on damages that can be awarded. Company screws up and sticks the tax payers with the bill. Sound familiar?

Ain't 'Murika wonderful? :puke: