Now I know why I dislike the Democratic Party!!!

Someone emailed this to me…pretty interesting…

Perhaps The Problem Is Identified…

Johnny Carson nailed lawyers with one of his “how cold was it?” jokes!
“It
was so cold that lawyers were running around with their hands in their own
pockets!!”

This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way. Perhaps this
is why so many physicians are conservatives or republicans.

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party.
Barack Obama is a lawyer.
Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer. ;
Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.

Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did
not
graduate).

Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd
Bentsen, went to law school.

Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:

Harry Reid is a lawyer.
Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different.
President Bush is a businessman.
Vice President Cheney is a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator. Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who
left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a
sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican
Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets
of lawyers.

The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men
who
create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or
who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.

The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and
services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have
seen
the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party,
grow.

Aga inst whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil
companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large
retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our
nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of
lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their
clients,
in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed,
they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn
precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful
way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view
some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then
the
role of the leg al system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some
Americans
become “adverse parties” of our very government. We are not all litigants
in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that
promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from
lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we
are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once
private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place
is
modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important
decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme
Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When
lawyers
use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as
happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of
lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in
order
to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to
us,
then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform or
real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every
major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not
what
Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a
war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans
intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral
values
or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy…

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our
nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and
business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the
mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.
Perhaps
Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will
only
make our problems worse.

The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s
lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress
several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in
ridiculous lawsuits such as “spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the
establishment that sold it to you” and also to limit punitive damages in
huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been
blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that
97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers
Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is
responsible
for our medical and product costs being so high!

Good article although we really don’t want tort reform. The argument is made about ridiculous lawsuits but never about most lawsuits. Most ridiculous lawsuits don’t get to trial and are thrown out. When a company does something wrong it can’t be put in jail, all we can do is make it pay money. The point of view should not be the scumbag that was hurt and now rolls away in his wheelchair with millions it should be on the company that had to pay the millions because of what it did maliciously.

If we get tort reform and put a limit on a human life caused by malicious acts. Let’s say this cost by law is capped at $1million. If you were a CEO of a corporation that had a situation that could and would likely cause a loss of life and the correction for that would cost $2million. You would be derelict in your duty to spend that money. In fact you would fire anybody in your company that spent that money wouldn’t you?

That is what tort is for. It is not for the slob that gets the money it is for the company that has just turned human suffering into a cost benefit analysis.

Lakeside,
Interesting but very biased analysis. I don’t doubt that we have 66% of the world’s lawyers–But what is our percentage of the world’s prisoners?

Bluemoon06,
You have really made me ponder the tort issue. You have made me see it from another angle. I am going to have to think about it some more. Thanks.

Speaking of huge tort issues–What was the final on Bhopal? Anyone know if those CEOs ever had to pay? For the negligent deaths of thousands?

Furnishedowner

Lakeside,

All you have to do is look at the current healthcare legislation being foisted upon an UNWILLING populace (the MAJORITY do NOT want what is being proposed by the DEMS) to see how in bed the DEMS are with the lawyers… 2000+ pages??? There is more to this than healthcare…

Bluemoon06,

“When a company does something wrong it can’t be put in jail, all we can do is make it pay money.”

That is not true… corporate executives HAVE INDEED been incarcerated due to their actions…

“That is what tort is for. It is not for the slob that gets the money it is for the company that has just turned human suffering into a cost benefit analysis.”

What you are forgetting is that, just as with taxes, the companies do NOT pay these judgments in the end, the end user of their products do, or they go out of business…

“That is what tort is for. It is not for the slob that gets the money it is for the company that has just turned human suffering into a cost benefit analysis.”

If you are going to assign nefarious and malicious personality to all companies… the amount would not matter, but it would then work out to a cost benefit analysis…

A MORE appropriate measure would be to LIMIT the amount that the LAWYERS get to profit from the plaintiffs (they take MORE than half their money in the end)… This would INCREASE the weight of what the person in the wheelchair gets while limiting the impact on everyone else who SUBSIDIZE said ludicrous judgments (whether it be in healthcare or whatever industry)…

Small businesses profits get walloped in lawsuits (in large part because they do have a large enough pool of clientele to disperse the expense), big business passes along the expense to their large pool of clientele… insurance also plays a big part in this…

They ALREADY cost-expense junk lawsuits into the equation…

Due to their actions not the company’s actions. The company is not the executives. That is not what Tort is for…

That is the equivalent to the death penalty. If his price is too high we will go to his competitor.

You are right it does come down to a cost benefit analysis but with an undefined risk amount. Companies will spend the money because there is a possibility of large judgments, not limited judgments.

What do you think a lawyer is but a small business. Why do you hate them so much? Should they not be able to make as much as they can? Are you just jealous of lawyers? Did one take your girlfriend or something?

86% of the NRA donations go to the Republican party. Do you hate the Republicns for that? Are gun owners better than lawyers?

Bluemoon06,

“86% of the NRA donations go to the Republican party. Do you hate the Republicns (sic) for that? Are gun owners better than lawyers?”

That’s rhetorical, right?.. Last I looked, the NRA did not TAKE MORE THAN HALF of the money for the gun owners they represent… as a matter of fact, they don’t TAKE at all from gun owners, gun owners GIVE to them for them to lobby on their behalf, and it is a fairly modest amount… I don’t yet own a gun, but I give to them… Lawyers TAKE their money… so yes, gun owners are better than lawyers…

“Due to their actions not the company’s actions. The company is not the executives. That is not what Tort is for…”

You still misunderstand how it ACTUALLY works… Big Business DOES NOT PAY judgments… their insurance pays or their customer pays… why do you think it takes so long to get paid on a judgment from Big Business?

“That is the equivalent to the death penalty. If his price is too high we will go to his competitor.”

Yes, the death penalty for the “company” :rolleyes, in which all the employees who lost their job also pay as collateral damage, just so a lawyer can take MORE THAN HALF…

“You are right it does come down to a cost benefit analysis but with an undefined risk amount. Companies will spend the money because there is a possibility of large judgments, not limited judgments.”

No, that’s why they have insurance (which their customers pay for) and anything above that… the customer pays for…

“What do you think a lawyer is but a small business. Why do you hate them so much? Should they not be able to make as much as they can? Are you just jealous of lawyers? Did one take your girlfriend or something?”

LOL… I guess the same question could be asked about insurance executives… “should they not be able to make as much as they can”?

If insurance companies pay then how is the company put out of business. Anyway what is wrong with the lawyers getting more than half the judgment? They did all the work. That is like tenants hating landlords because we make all the profit.

Why do you hate lawyers are you jealous?

“If insurance companies pay then how is the company put out of business.”

Insurance companies are part of the equation, but you forget what happens when they pay… the company in turn pays more for premiums which they in turn pass along to the consumer of their product… anything above the insurance coverage in the judgment, the company passes the expense to the consumer… so, in the end, the consumer pays or the company goes out of business because the increase necessary puts them out of business (along with adding their employees to the roles of the unemployed)… All the give a lawyer MORE THAN HALF of the guy in the wheelchairs money…

“Anyway what is wrong with the lawyers getting more than half the judgment? They did all the work. That is like tenants hating landlords because we make all the profit.”

So it’s your position that the guy in the wheelchair who has to live the rest of his/her life in that condition should get the least amount of money when it is their condition that afforded the payday???

“Why do you hate lawyers are you jealous?”

LOL… why do you hate insurance company executives so much… are you jealous? :rolleyes or better yet, are you a lawyer?

I don’t hate lawyers per se, they are a necessary evil… but IMHO lawyers cause more problems than they fix, and they do so on everyone elses dime… they don’t create anything, they only extract, and the money that is extracted comes from the victim or the defendant…

I am not a lawyer but I love my lawyer. He does a lot of good for me. I give him Christmas gifts every year. The real issue is that the money comes from the offending company not that it goes to the lawyer or the plaintiff. Think about it. Is an arm really worth $100,000 or a life really worth $1million? It is not compensation for the victim as much as punishment for the company.

Bluemoon06,

“I am not a lawyer but I love my lawyer. He does a lot of good for me. I give him Christmas gifts every year.”

I am sure that the healthcare executives can say the same thing…

“The real issue is that the money comes from the offending company not that it goes to the lawyer or the plaintiff.”

That’s an interesting perspective… then why not just give the actual victim a 10% finders fee and let the lawyer take the remaining portion… they do all the work, right?

“Think about it. Is an arm really worth $100,000 or a life really worth $1million?”

My personal opinion on this is that if it is proved that someone was a victim due to negligence, that their medical expenses are paid for, and the COMPENSATORY damages should be equal to the income the person would have derived in their profession times whatever period of time they have left to the age of retirement or to when they can return to work if they are not completely disabled, with an annual cost factor of 3-5% for COL adjustments. This number is then multiplied by a factor of 1.25 with the .25 being for pain and suffering. As part of this, I don’t believe that they should get the money in one lump sum either, but in incremental payments, as people who receive settlements typically blow through the money, and then end up on assistance (for those with permanent disability). There are MANY positions that disabled people can do, and work is good for people. If Stephen Hawking can continue to make a go of it with only his mind, noone has an excuse…

The lawyer should get a FLAT FEE (based on actual time) for this work plus expenses. That being the case, settlements would be quicker, court dockets would be lighter, and the VICTIMS would receive 100% of the reward.

Would it work… who knows… but when you ask is an arm worth this or a life worth that, it makes it worse when the VICTIM is told it is worth MUCH LESS because the lawyer will get MORE than the victim… which is WHY lawyers have their deserved reputation…


“It is not compensation for the victim as much as punishment for the company.”

That punishment is just a business expense that is passed along to the consumers of their product… so who REALLY gets punished and who REALLY benefits financially off the case? The lawyer makes the majority of the money and the business passes off the expense to someone else… it’s not like they start paying their executives LESS because of a lawsuit… maybe a firing or two, but the remaining ones still get paid, so how is the “company” itself punished? The only way that works is if the company goes out of business (your death sentence analogy), and then it is not the “company” that is punished, but its employees… all to make a lawyer MORE money than the victim…

I have no problems with your suggestions except this. You can’t pass through all the costs because it will cause your businesses cost structure to be out of whack with the rest of your industry. Just like if you paid your workers too much or paid too much for raw materials. That will produce an opening for your competitors to under price you and put you out of business.

That being said the threat of lawsuits keeps companies honest.

Bluemoon06,

“I have no problems with your suggestions except this. You can’t pass through all the costs because it will cause your businesses cost structure to be out of whack with the rest of your industry. Just like if you paid your workers too much or paid too much for raw materials. That will produce an opening for your competitors to under price you and put you out of business.”

You are forgetting the role of insurance… It’s the amount not paid by insurance that has to be factored across the board, and in the case of big business, they have many avenues to do so…

“That being said the threat of lawsuits keeps companies honest.”

That’s true of everyone… but things happen anyway… Just because a lawyer makes an argument or someone feels they have been wronged doesn’t mean it’s true… but I won’t argue that lawsuits aren’t necessary…