A conversation isn't (or doesn't have to be) a flame. We can choose to have an honest one WITHOUT talking points or not. Here's what I see every time I watch television: some law firm or other is advertising a class action law suit because of some medication or other. Perhaps in A FEW cases it's justified. But every single medication carries risk, even children's Tylenol (my nephew had a weird disease when he was a baby and he could only take aspirin). Anyone who swallows a pill (or a parent who gives their children medication) knows this. Drug trials are important but they can't possibly anticipate EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM that will come along. And often, the MAJORITY of people are helped by drug.
Acutane is a good example. Both my brother and sister took this in their teens and both are in their 30's and 40's. It was dangerous then and it's dangerous now. My niece who is 14, homeschooled, and not sexually active had to be on birth control while she was using it because the risk to the baby is so great. Yet, now there's a lawsuit being trotted out. The risks are (and have been) known for a couple decades now but when someone has exhausted all other alternatives it's the only thing that works for SEVERE acne. Things like this make medications cost more and stifle research.
Frivolous lawsuits abound. McDonald's coffee is hot. So are irons. Plastic bags do not belong on the heads of 2 year olds. Light a match to someone's pajamas and they generally catch on fire or melt. At some point people have to take responsibility. Life in general carries risk. If there was some kind of law that required the loser pay (or perhaps the law firm would absorb the cost of the suit) so as to keep the frivolous out of the courts, it would prevent some of this nonsense and expense (generally passed on to consumers). Some are important but most aren't.
I'd also argue that both parties get monies from corporations. And certain industries gravitate toward certain parties. That's life and beltway politics. But the banking industry, mortgage & investment firms gave the majority of their funds to Democrats (Obama and Dodd more than most). BP gave more to Obama than any other candidate. Both have been problematic. The filthy rich are (and give more) to Democrats than Republicans. More donations to the Republican party are from smaller donations. That's just a verifiable fact. It's neither bad nor good, just a fact. And unions give more to Democrats than they do to Republicans. They are a very rich special interest that often doesn't serve (or represents) those forced to belong. Look how many union MEMBERS have conservative values (still clinging to God and guns) and work ethic. And the NEA has long ago stopped representing teachers, becoming a top down, coercive group that has too much influence on government and gives local school districts too little autonomy.
So, if industries whose unions contribute to Democrats to gain influence, it would stand to reason that the companies that hire those union workers (especially when coerced) would gravitate to the other party. That kind of tension is important for a thriving republic. It's intellectually dishonest to say "corporations give to Republicans" and that the Republicans are the party of the rich. We can't get anywhere in this country if we're going to continue to spew (and believe) outdated stereotypes. Do hang around though if you want an honest debate.
Cindie
Wow. That's a lot to respond to. Thanks for the toughtful post.
And, yes, as this thread proves, a civil discussion is very possible in this environment. I suppose my first post here was a little defensive. Sorry about that.
As for the class actions, specifically product liability actions, here in GA only one class action can be brought for each defective product (and a percentage of the award, if the Plaintiffs' win, is supposed to go to the state). Personally, I know little about these. I am not set up to handle a class action. That takes a large firm with a big bankroll. I am a solo practicioner (as, by the way, are most attorneys). There was a time when state bar associations didn't allow any advertising. Your reaction is part of the reason. People think it's tacky. All the same, I defend attorney advertising because most people don't know any attorneys, personally, and advertising has given access to legal representation that many people did not have before.
Life does carry risk, but I can assure you that if a Plaintiff survives the 12b(6) motion to dismiss, survives the motion for summary judgment, then survives and wins at trial where a jury of 12 people rule for the Plaintiff, and then the judge doesn't enter a verdict against the Plaintiff not withstanding the judgment--if all of that happens, and Plaintiff wins every step of the way, I can assure you that the Defendant took an unreasonable risk that jeopardized someone, and that a lot of people agree the defendant should be punished for it to deter others from acting so dangerously.
The deck is stacked against Plainitff so strongly that, in nearly every case, if Plaintiff wins, Plaintiff deserved to win ... big time. And if the jury awards Plaintiff big bucks (and the Judge doesn't immediately reduce the award--which judges often do), then you can assume that that the Defendant did was really, unacceptably dangerous.
That's how this issue looks from my end, in any event. I don't see any frivilous lawsuits. I can't afford to work for free, nor can most Plaintiffs' attorneys. If I don't think I can win, I don't take the case. It simply makes no sense for any Plaintiffs' attorney to take a case (for no pay unless they win) unless they have a strong belief that they can win, and there are too many hurdles for Plaintiff to get over before a case even gets to a jury for Plaintiffs' attorney to take a bad case.
I hope that makes sense and at least sheds some light on this issue.
-Laelth
