The Senate has voted to curb class-action lawsuits. This may cut down on frivolous lawsuits, but it will undoubtedly cut down on legitimate lawsuits that big business will have to face. Here's a quote from an article from AP.org and MyWay.com:
The Senate approved a measure Thursday to help shield businesses from major class action lawsuits like the ones that have been brought against tobacco companies, giving President Bush the first legislative victory of his second term.
Under the legislation, long sought by big business, large multistate class action lawsuits could no longer be heard in small state courts. Such courts have handed out multimillion-dollar verdicts.
BUT WAIT--THERE'S MORE:
And now, the bad news: The Senate has also passed a law forcing all states to meet new standards with their IDs.
This is some seriously fucked up Orwellian shit right here.
These new IDs would be issued to every adult in America and:
must include a digital photograph, anticounterfeiting features and undefined "machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements" that could include a magnetic strip or RFID tag. The Department of Homeland Security would be charged with drafting the details of the regulation.
So much for "the land of the free." Once these new IDs get issued, we'll be trackable by the government in our own country. Sure, most of us have driver's licenses anyway, but those are voluntary. You don't have to have them. Now we'll have no choice.
I hope I don't have to tell you how this violates the very concept of "a free country."
I just can't believe they're doing this.
Read more about the limitations put on class action lawsuits.
Read more about the Orwellian nightmare national ID cards.From News.Com.com:
House approves electronic ID cards
Published: February 10, 2005, 5:46 PM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
The U.S. House of Representatives approved on Thursday a sweeping set of rules aimed at forcing states to issue all adults federally approved electronic ID cards, including driver's licenses.
Under the rules, federal employees would reject licenses or identity cards that don't comply, which could curb Americans' access to airplanes, trains, national parks, federal courthouses and other areas controlled by the federal government. The bill was approved by a 261-161 vote.
The measure, called the Real ID Act, says that driver's licenses and other ID cards must include a digital photograph, anticounterfeiting features and undefined "machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements" that could include a magnetic strip or RFID tag. The Department of Homeland Security would be charged with drafting the details of the regulation.
Republican politicians argued that the new rules were necessary to thwart terrorists, saying that four of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers possessed valid state-issued driver's licenses. "When I get on an airplane and someone shows ID, I'd like to be sure they are who they say they are," said Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, during a floor debate that started Wednesday.
States would be required to demand proof of the person's Social Security number and confirm that number with the Social Security Administration. They would also have to scan in documents showing the person's date of birth and immigration status, and create a massive store "so that the (scanned) images can be retained in electronic storage in a transferable format" permanently.
Another portion of the bill says that states would be required to link their DMV databases if they wished to receive federal funds. Among the information that must be shared: All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards, and complete drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions and points on licenses.
The Bush administration threw its weight behind the Real ID Act, which has been derided by some conservative and civil liberties groups as tantamount to a national ID card. The White House said in a statement this week that it "strongly supports House passage" of the bill.
Thursday's vote mostly fell along party lines. About 95 percent of the House Republicans voted for the bill, which had been prepared by the judiciary committee chairman, F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican. More than three-fourths of the House Democrats opposed it.
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat from Washington, D.C., charged that Republicans were becoming hypocrites by trampling on states' rights. "I thought the other side of the aisle extols federalism at all times," Norton said. "Yes, even in hard times, even when you're dealing with terrorism. So what's happening now? Why are those who speak up for states whenever it strikes their fancy doing this now?"
Civil libertarians and firearm rights groups condemned the bill before the vote. The American Civil Liberties Union likened the new rules to a "de facto national ID card," saying that the measure would force "states to deny driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants" and make DMV employees act as agents of the federal immigration service.
Because an ID is required to purchase a firearm from a dealer, Gun Owners of America said the bill amounts to a "bureaucratic back door to implementation of a national ID card." The group warned that it would "empower the federal government to determine who can get a driver's license--and under what conditions."
©2005 CNET Networks, Inc.
Senate OKs Limit on Class Action Lawsuits
Feb 10, 7:15 PM (ET)
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate approved a measure Thursday to help shield businesses from major class action lawsuits like the ones that have been brought against tobacco companies, giving President Bush the first legislative victory of his second term.
Under the legislation, long sought by big business, large multistate class action lawsuits could no longer be heard in small state courts. Such courts have handed out multimillion-dollar verdicts.
Instead, the cases would be heard by federal judges, who have not proven as open to those type of lawsuits.
The Senate passed the bill 72-26. It now goes to the House.
"We look forward to this legislation coming to the House floor next week so we can send it to President Bush, who has made its enactment a top priority," said a statement from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, House Judiciary chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and House Agriculture chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
"The Senate has taken a critical step toward granting families, consumers and employers relief from the heavy burden of lawsuit abuse," said Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Now it's time for the House to finish the job and take back our civil justice system from plaintiffs' lawyers seeking jackpot justice."
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America said insurance, tobacco, drug, chemical and other companies had financed the push to get the legislation through the Senate. "Every American's legal rights are diminished by this anti-consumer legislation," said association president Todd A. Smith said.
Bush and other bill supporters - who have pushed for the legislation for almost six years - say it is needed because greedy lawyers have taken advantage of the state system by filing frivolous lawsuits in state courts where they know they can get big verdicts.
Senators who back the bill say lawyers make more money from such cases than do the actual victims, and that lawyers sometimes threaten companies with class action lawsuits just to get quick financial settlements. Regular people, they assure, will not lose their day in court.
Opponents say Bush and other bill supporters are trying to help businesses escape proper judgments for their wrongdoing - and also to hurt the trial lawyers who litigate the cases, some of whom are big Democratic contributors.
"Are there bad lawyers that bring meritless cases? Sure there are, and we should crack down on them," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a former trial lawyer. "But this bill is not about punishing bad lawyers. It is about hurting consumers and helping corporations avoid liability for misconduct."
Eight Democrats were sponsors of the bill, leaving the rest with no way to block it.
Bush and other supporters say the bill, which would send most multistate class action lawsuits to federal court instead of allowing them to be heard in state courts, is needed because lawyers try to file lawsuits in friendly jurisdictions where they are most likely to get large payouts.
The bill's aim "is to make sure when companies are called on the carpet, when they are involved in a class action litigation, they're in a court, in a courthouse with a judge where the companies have a fair shake, where the odds, the decks aren't stacked against them," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del.
Changing the legal system - including class action lawsuits, medical malpractice lawsuits and asbestos injury lawsuits - has been a priority of Bush and the business community.
"The reason why this bill is the highest priority of the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress is because of one simple fact: Class action suits moved from state courts to federal court are less likely to go forward, to be tried, and they are less likely to reach a verdict where someone wins or loses," said Senate Democratic Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill. And if the plaintiffs win, businesses are "less likely to pay a reasonable amount of money in federal court than in state court."
The GOP-controlled Senate struck a deal with the House saying if senators passed the bill unchanged, representatives would approve the bill as-is and send it to the White House to be signed into law.
Senators fought off several Democratic amendments, including changes that would have blocked federal judges from throwing out complicated multistate class action lawsuits or would have exempted state attorneys general actions and civil rights cases from the bill's provisions.
Under the compromise legislation, class-action suits would be heard in state court if the primary defendant and more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state. But if less than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the primary defendant, the case would go to federal court.
At least $5 million would have to be at stake for a federal court to hear a class-action suit.
The bill also would limit lawyers' fees in so-called coupon settlements - when plaintiffs get discounts on products instead of financial settlements - by linking the fees to the coupon's redemption rate or the actual hours spent working on a case.
---
On the Net:
Senate bill is S. 5, can be found at: http://thomas.loc.gov
Copyright 2005 Associated Press
No comments:
Post a Comment