Frivolous Lawsuits, Judges, and What's Really Dangerous

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt)

"One of the signs of our times is a recent ruling by a federal judge that those who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks can sue the planes' manufacturer and the owners of the World Trade Center, among others. This extraordinary -- indeed, unique -- terrorist attack was "foreseeable," according to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in New York.

By the same reasoning, it was "foreseeable" that there would be jackasses like Judge Hellerstein on the federal bench. Similar judges have allowed our courts to become clogged with frivolous lawsuits and turned law into an instrument of legalized extortion."

(end excerpt)

In this column, Thomas Sowell brings up some interesting points, and closes with a surprising point.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030916.shtml

[brad]

interesting is that the airlines should have foreseen it but the CIA, etc. , claimed it was something they never even thought of. (ok a lie, but thats what they said)

[MMMMMM]

er, brad, not to ignore your point, but is that what you got out of the article...that the airlines should have foreseen it?

[ACPlayer]

[MMMMMM]

I think he's really good--not perfect, but pretty darn good, really.

Browsing the Sowell archives recently (search, I guess) at www. TownHall.com I was quite impressed overall. I like his style and he usually packs in a lot of content, with some interestng and sometimes profound perspectives. I also like how he cuts through much of the BS many people take for granted.

[ACPlayer]

i think it was in Forbes that I first read him many years ago and liked his writing style. Dont always agree with him, but who do i agree with anyway. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[brad]

no no the judge said the airlines should ahve foreseen it, but CIA said it was unforeseeable etc. (eg, from an intelligence standpoint it was unable to be stopped, etc.)

[Stu Pidasso]

Miss Cleo should have forseen it.

I wonder if we could sue her?

Stu

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gifnever fails to amaze me just what a huge amount of control and power the lawyers have in the u.s.a.....i mean it is obviously way outta control...the amount of money aucked off by legal profession in usa is obscene...but who controls the governing bodies....lawyers who are "public servents" (oxymoron)..who use their positions to gain even more power and control...

lawyers are a major, big-league problem in usa, but this cannot be discussed on 2+2...

wonder why???

lol

gl /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[HDPM]

You can discuss it on 2+2, but lawyers just shout you down when you're wrong. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif


Why lawyers have so much power is because the government has so much power, yet we value individual freedom and accomplishment to some extent. When the government regulated less, there was less need for lawyers. There was still a need for them, but there were fewer and the scope of lawyering was narrower I think. As government power increased, the need for lawyers increased. The airlines are whining now, but how many airline lawyers have worked for years on getting favors from government regulators (who are or use lawyers) in the mixed economy we have? Once the government doles out favors, protection, and harsh regulation, people will hire lawyers to get their share or to avoid being crushed.

Where there is a lot of government regulation and a lack of lawyers fighting for individuals (corporations are people too) you get places like China. I don't want to live in China.

Is our system perfect? No.