http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...litics_3294998

About like if Osama Bin Laden wanted to limit terrorism!

How so?
Frivelous lawsuits aren't exactly a contraversial thing. The only hard part is figuring out how to limit them without screwing over legitimate plaintiffs.
Just because Edwards is a trial lawyer doesn't mean he has to be for frivelous lawsuits. It's just like the fact that just because he's rich he doesn't become a hypocrite for wanting to help the poor.
The guys a populist of the most aggravating kind... but I don't see what's so horrible about this.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

I think it would help Blades case if he could link us to a case in which Edwards participated in a frivelous lawsuit.

My theory, based on substantial evidence is that this is "horrible" in Blades mind because it Edwards is a liberal. And as such, everything Liberal is evil and wrong.

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Wanting to help the poor is not what makes him a first class hypocrite. What makes him a hypocrite is using class warfare tactics. The evil rich CEOs vs. the little guy.

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

Eg, In June Of 1999, Edwards voted for an amendment that would have removed language from the Y2K liability legislation that protected computer companies from frivolous lawsuits. (Amendment to S. 96, Roll Call #161: Rejected 41-57: R 3-51; D 38-6, June 10, 1999)

Define frivelous.
That's the other issue here.
I could be against frivelous lawsuits and somehow not see a lawsuit you see as frivelous as frivelous... That's the other problem
Frankly I think the most damaging frivelous lawsuits are those made against schools that cause them to get dumbed down out of fear... but even I can't determine how to limit that without screwing over some legitimate claims.
Most people don't even seem to think about those. They think about accidents and such... And the policy that always seems to be brought up also affects people in accidents when the manufacturer is obviously to blame.

The idea of a frivelous lawsuit is itself weird. The courts are designed to take cases and determine if they have merit. I personally don't believe there's a good way to preemptively declare cases as not worthy.
But apparently Edwards thinks he knows how.

Edwards thinks he knows a lot... He's actually below Hillary on my list and would be at the bottom if there weren't a few Democratic candidates promising to pull out all troops immediately.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

For those who like context:

Roll Call #161 regarded Senate Amendment #619, which was proposed by Edwards as an amendment to Senate Amendment #608, a McCain proposal that set limits on Y2K liability for businesses.

Part of McCain's amendment limited Y2K-related "economic loss" claims to actual physical damage to property. It specifically excluded the most likely sources of Y2K-related problems, such as business interruption and lost sales.

Edwards' amendment read simply: "A party to a Y2K action making a tort claim may only recover for economic losses to the extent allowed under applicable state or federal law in effect on January 1, 1999." In other words, the existing law worked just fine and didn't need to be amended.

Also rejected was a second Edwards amendment (#620) to #608, which would have added a provision removing some lawsuit protections from companies that knowingly sold flawed software after Jan. 1, 1999.

Whether you think Edwards was justified or not depends on what you consider "frivolous" lawsuits. While I can see how some Y2K claims would be vague enough to invite abuse, I think some people's dislike of trial lawyers leads them to view nearly *any* lawsuit as frivolous.

__________________
Man up.

How can a candidate claim he wants to crack down on "frivolous" lawsuits, when he can't even stay away from "frivolous" haircuts?

Edwards is D.U.N...done.

What would supply side Jesus say about $400 haircuts?


Ixtellor

P.S. Seems to me a conservative should be in favor of expensive hair cuts. So on my scorecard, both Edwards and Conservatives are hypocrits on this one.

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Translation: McCain wanted real proveable losses, and Edwards wanted the old tort law that made him a multi-millionaire by his skilled manipulation of ignorant gullible juries.