Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Hey Tort Reform Advocates
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dennishoddy" data-source="post: 1567596" data-attributes="member: 5412"><p>I don't know how this works in Okla, but I was listining to one of the talking heads on the radio today about tort reform.</p><p>I will admit my ignorance of the court system in general, so anything I say is purely hearsay.</p><p></p><p>The person calling in, said that in the court system (whatever state) has three opportunities by the Judge to determine if it is a "frivilous" law suit, at different stages of the hearing.</p><p>Again, I don't know. The person calling in was an Attorney.</p><p></p><p>They bantered back and forth, and I don't think either made a point that would prove their case.</p><p></p><p>Basically, I pretty much agree that anybody filing a "frivilous" law suit should pay if they loose, but its objective what is frivilous by the political background of the Judge.</p><p></p><p>A liberal judge may rule that its not frivilous, and a conservative judge may rule the other way.</p><p></p><p>So it goes to the Appeals process. Same deal.</p><p></p><p>Politics plays into the determination.</p><p></p><p>Then it goes to the supreme court, that is totally political. Both parties attempt to get a Supreme Court judge that is conservative, or liberal, appointed to office during their tenure.</p><p></p><p>So, what does justice come down to?</p><p></p><p>Politics. Period. End of Game.</p><p></p><p>One think I do agree with both sides of that conversation. IF you want to sue somebody, and loose the case, the person losing the case must pay all costs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dennishoddy, post: 1567596, member: 5412"] I don't know how this works in Okla, but I was listining to one of the talking heads on the radio today about tort reform. I will admit my ignorance of the court system in general, so anything I say is purely hearsay. The person calling in, said that in the court system (whatever state) has three opportunities by the Judge to determine if it is a "frivilous" law suit, at different stages of the hearing. Again, I don't know. The person calling in was an Attorney. They bantered back and forth, and I don't think either made a point that would prove their case. Basically, I pretty much agree that anybody filing a "frivilous" law suit should pay if they loose, but its objective what is frivilous by the political background of the Judge. A liberal judge may rule that its not frivilous, and a conservative judge may rule the other way. So it goes to the Appeals process. Same deal. Politics plays into the determination. Then it goes to the supreme court, that is totally political. Both parties attempt to get a Supreme Court judge that is conservative, or liberal, appointed to office during their tenure. So, what does justice come down to? Politics. Period. End of Game. One think I do agree with both sides of that conversation. IF you want to sue somebody, and loose the case, the person losing the case must pay all costs. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Hey Tort Reform Advocates
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom