The Conservative Attempt to Federalize Tort “Reform”

As many of you know, there is a congressional “Super Committee” set up to look for ways to better balance our budget via expenditure cutbacks and/or revenue increases. And among the ideas floated by certain conservatives, is to sneak medical malpractice “reform” into the package.

I’ve railed many times against the abject hypocrisy of conservatives seeking to enlarge federal power by giving protections and immunities to those that injure others by negligence. Without me repeating myself, these are a a few, then I’ll get to the link I really want to send you to:

The New Congress and the Constitution (Will they really defend it?) (January 6, 2011)

Does the Tea Party Believe in Conservatism or Tort “Reform”? (8 Questions) (May 3, 2010)

The False Premises of Medical Malpractice “Reform” (Response to Richard Epstein in WSJ) (June 30, 2009)

Today it is someone else’s turn to hold the torch, that being Andrew Cochran, founder of The 7th Amendment Advocate, a website dedicated to educating the public and policymakers on the centuries-long history of the right enunciated in the 7th Amendment to a jury trial for civil suits.

And he writes today on the many conservative voices in academia that have risen up to oppose as unconstitutional the attempt to use federal power to limit the rights of the citizenry in state court claims: Letter to “Super Committee” Opposing Federal Tort Reform Proposals

Among those conservatives that have spoken out against the hypocritical usurpation of state rights are:

Professor Randy Barnett; longtime tort reform proponents Walter Olson and Ted Frank; Republican Members of Congress such as Sen. Tom Coburn and Reps. Ted Poe, John Duncan, and Ron Paul; and the largest association of state legislators in the country

Cochran today sends a 10-page letter to the Super Committee members, dwelling mainly on this issue: That conservatives cannot scream that President Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional as a federal power grab while at the same time asking to give the federal government more power.

The letter, filled with essential links and quotes, is here: Letter to “Super Committee” Opposing Federal Tort Reform Proposals.

Tags:

5 Responses Leave a comment

  • Avenger 2011.10.12 at 21:21 | Quote

    I quite agree – get the Feds out of as much as possible; however, I doubt that the Federal Bureaucracy can be unravelled at this point so I understand the efforts to slant it instead

    It strikes me that the purpose of the jury system was to protect the rights of the defendant, so the right to waive a jury trial should belong to the defendant, in both criminal and civil matters

  • Eric Turkewitz 2011.10.12 at 21:56 | Quote

    It strikes me that the purpose of the jury system was to protect the rights of the defendant…

    Certainly that is the case for criminal trials and the 6th Amendment, but not civil trials. The 7th Amendment says:

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    It is worth noting that the issue of jury trials (and the concept of keeping power with the people and out of the hands of the government) is in both the Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights.

  • Cilla Mitchell 2011.10.13 at 06:48 | Quote

    Tort Reform is a legal weapon used in Texas against Texans ever since Governor Rick Perry signed the 2003 Tort Reform Act. When there are laws on the books preventing the common man from getting accountability, no telling what will happen.

    Providing a link showing the collateral damage left behind Tort Reform.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT7rxa21_Xo

    If link is not accessible, Google Cleveland Mark Mitchell, then click on youtube Cleveland Mark Mitchell December 12 1950 – April 26 2008.

Comments are closed.


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.