Excessive litigation is already having a very detrimental effect on American society. Do we really want a trial lawyer as President?

That's my feeling, too, David. If Edwards is elected, it would make me into the conservative equivalent of a Bush-hater. I would lose all reason, begin frothing at the mouth and constantly equate him with Stalin. I would not be able to help myself.

Edwards has never had to stand for re-election. One of the resons he is running for president is his re-election to the Senate was less than certain. Edwards has never commanded anything. He as no executive experience. None, nada, zip. All he has is a pleasing personna and a good campaign speech. He has a net worth of $30 to $50 million dollars which he obtained at a 30% commission on some big jury awards he won.

If we needed someone to sue UBL or the Saudi's he would be a good choice. But for president, what skills does he bring to the table?

Bush has an MBA from Harvard. Our first president with an MBA.

Do we really want a trial lawyer as President?

Well, that depends on whether you see yourself as a plaintiff or a defendant.

If we needed someone to sue UBL or the Saudi's he would be a good choice. But for president, what skills does he bring to the table?

You're making a joke, right? Right?

Bush has an MBA from Harvard. Our first president with an MBA.

This is a joke, right? Please tell me this is a joke.

A trial lawyer president would make the world tremble in fear.

Anyhoo, you know how Edwards could pick up millions and millions of votes and quash Kerry? Come out in support of strong enforcement of our immigration laws and in favor of the Barbara Jordan commission's findings. No bashing, just an American solution to one of our major problems.

Kerry's not only wrong on immigration, and not only is he a divider, he's proud of having received the endorsement of a former member of a racial separatist organization.

On another note, consider Kerry's indirect ties with Ken Lay and Enron.

He's now bashing Ken Lay and Enron, pointing out how much money they gave to Bush. However, shortly before the bashing began, Ken Lay served for a decade on the board of Tuh-RAY-Zuh's foundation.

A trial lawyer and one-term Senator.

“The more I see of Kerry, the harder a time I have liking him. “

Seriously, Dean, “like him” or not, doesn’t it seem as though it’s time for someone with real experience. You know, global terror, trade & monetary conflicts, WMD proliferation, technology and biotechnology on the exponential curve, a crisis of confidence in both business and politics. Perhaps someone who actually knows about war, intelligence and how Washington works could be a good thing. Before you buy the whole Republican smear, try to take a fair read of the man.

Besides, you're going to get them both anyway.

Ara, I absolutely love your sense of humour. I like to think that most of the time I understand the jokes even if I'm not very educated politically. (hence me not usually posting in political threads)

I know almost nothing about John Edwards. Will you please explain what you were getting at regarding Ted's post? To be honest, I would like to know what's funny, not dispute it. (btw, Ted, no offense intended)

If not, I can probably figure it out, so ok. I am feeling lazy today. Some days researching how many presidents had MBAs is fun but not today.

Brett

shep,

The problem is that Kerry knows precisely how Washington works...thus one rather mean wag has pointed out that if Kerry holds true to his MO, he'll support the re-election of President Bush until the second week of November....Kerry's a piece of shit.

Dean,

Edwards is a trial lawyer - meaning he has sucked the life-blood out of private enterprise in order to make himself fabulously wealthy. He's a piece of shit, too.

Well, that depends on whether you see yourself as a plaintiff or a defendant.

Ara, when you're right, you're right.

Edwards's problem is that the majority of Americans don't see themselves as plaintiffs.

Mark wrote:

"The problem is that Kerry knows precisely how Washington works....Kerry's a piece of shit."

So, you are saying that President Bush is merely an ignorant piece of shit?

How can you like someone whose primary political stance is protectionism? I think it's sad that Democrats are so economically illiterate that their nominating process has boiled down to "who can screw up our economy more".

Sad, but not surprising.

Any of you other commenters from North Carolina?

I am, and I have this to say:

Edwards' track record as a Senator consists mainly of positioning himself to run for President. I would not vote to re-elect him to his current office, much less to put him in the White House.

Much of his appeal is nostalgia for a "fresh face" (a la J.F. Kennedy). He has that, he speaks well, he has a nice all-American name, and he has a lot of trial lawyer money behind him. But who is he really, in terms of experience and readiness for high office?

He's the Democratic version of Dan Quayle, that's who.

Mark,

Edwards is a trial lawyer - meaning he has sucked the life-blood out of private enterprise in order to make himself fabulously wealthy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mark, but it seems to me that every trial he participated in had a judge and a jury watching. You know?

They were there, deciding the case on its merits. THEY knew far more about the cases than I'll EVER know (and the same goes for you). And every time Edwards won a case, he won it fair and square under the rule of law that protects everyone in this country.

Do you have a problem with the rule of law that protects us all in this country, Mark?

Do you?

McGeehee:

Edwards's problem is that the majority of Americans don't see themselves as plaintiffs.

Nor do the majority see themselves as defendants either.

What's your point?

Could someone tell me what skills Edwards brings to the table? The man has NO experience, but he is slick - Slick Eddie. His ONLY political experience is being elected to the Senate - ONCE.

Ara,
Bush DOES have a Harvard MBA. Class of '74.

"Bush DOES have a Harvard MBA. Class of '74."

The best money can buy.

Shep,
If you think Harvard would cut Bush some slack just because of money or influence, you mistaken. Check it out here.

Ted,

If you think Bush would have gotten into or finished Havard without Daddie's money and clout, you're a partisan.

Yeah,

A trial lawyer would make the world tremble in fear.

Too bad we can't just sue Osama bin Laden and his death cult.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Shep,
Of course I'm a partisan. Aren't you? Isn't everyone? Show me the purely objective person and I'll show you beautiful land in Florida at a great price!

shep:
"If you think Bush would have gotten into or finished Havard without Daddie's money and clout, you're a partisan."

And you are... what, exactly?

At least Ted provided a link. You got one?

As long as we understand each other, Ted ;-) The difference here being that I'm not making a partisan claim - that Bush's MBA qualifies him for the presidency - I'm debunking one.

Well, if we are talking about track record, let's examine what Dubya has done. He took a budget surplus in Texas and squandered it. He took a budget surplus in America and lost it as well. Economically speaking, he's never done his Harvard MBA proud. His mind was probably still on those dangerous fighter jets he flew back in Nam. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't daddy Bush have to bail him out of every financial mess he got into? No wait, that was Ken Lay. I guess his MBA taught him to dump stock just before it tanks (as he did with Harken Energy Corp). Of course they did teach him that using insider information is illegal and you could get in plenty of trouble if your name is NOT Bush. John Edwards would be a welcome change to Bush. The trial lawyer versus the big bad business-can-do-no-wrong as long as the rich keep getting richer. And people, are we forgetting that it was Shrub that traded Sammy Sosa to Chicago. He's a one-termer. Game over man, game over.

Don't dignify Edwards with the term "trial lawyer". He's a personal-injury lawyer. You know, the guys that take out full-page ads in the phone book offering free services to the injured party- well, as long as they think there's money in it for them, that is. If your case isn't big enough, too bad.

Do any of you know any personal-injury lawyers? I, unfortunately do, being a member of the profession upon whose backs Edwards built his fortune.

He did it with birth-injury cases, the vast majority of which have prenatal sources of injury. He and his ilk have increased the rate of cesarean sections, increased the cost of healthcare, driven doctors out of obstetrics and lined their pockets. And just today, I see where the Dems in the Senate won't allow tort reform even for this small group of vulnerable physicians.

And Ara, any system where 90% of malpractice premiums are sucked up by the legal system and the insurance companies, and injured patients get only 10%, is FUBAR. Our court system may be great for almost everything else, but in medical malpractice, it sucks for everyone except the personal-injury lawyers.

I recognize that I cannot be impartial regarding his qualifications, but those are my reasons.

I believe I must put my two cents in.

1st matter: Bush and his MBA. Great. So what does this show? When he leaves office he can be an accountant? Uh, how honest are they, by the way? Maybe Bush should trade it in for a JD.

2nd matter: Edward's legal background. These large settlements and alleged frivolous lawsuits are due to juries and judges. If one truly does not have a cause of action to bring, it is the judge's fault if it gets to trial at all! It is juries and judges who give the big tobacco awards, not lawyers.

Edward's large victories in court are a sign of the culture that he practices in. Some of the best areas for big awards from juries are conservative, more populist, Democratic areas. Think Mississippi. It's not due to any liberalism in him.

Just back from finishing the bar exam today. Greetings to Paul Burgess and Steven Anderson, my two favorite Deaniacs!

Tim:

You almost forgot -- George W. Bush is a guy who couldn't find oil in Texas.

Most malpractice claims that are filed never make it to court, Libertarian. Most are dropped (some are legitimate ones, but not "worth" enough) or settled. It's the unseen iceberg of dealing with these claims that drives up the costs for everyone. The only ones that come out ahead are the lawyers. Not the patients, not the hospitals, not the doctors; all of whom are supposed to be served by this system.

Dani:

He and his ilk have increased the rate of cesarean sections, increased the cost of healthcare, driven doctors out of obstetrics and lined their pockets.

Like I said before, every trial that John Edwards participated in had a judge and a jury as well as a defendant and a plaintiff. That's how the system works, and I think it works fine.

But you don't feel that way?

Ok, for the record 26 presidents were lawyers, or 27 if you count Grover Cleveland twice, whose only government experience was being an attorney.

Maybe my visceral attitude toward Shrub is subconsciously derived from the constant conservative bashing of trial lawyers. First of all even Rush Limbaugh has great praise for some lawyers, his own. Lawyers provide a unique and quite honorable service to this nation, without which the very fabric of our society would crumble. I knew the rap on us thirty years ago, which only strengthens my resolve that it is a truly noble profession.

Shakespeare's phrase "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" is fun, and is inscribed on a plaque in my office. (King Henry VI, Act 2, Scene 4) It was spoken by the character Dick the Butcher, a leader of the mob ready to overthrow the government by force, an anarchist if not a communist. Dick was a dick, and The Bard painted him as the fool he was.

The average person wouldn't stand a chance against a prosecutor who was out to get him. Lawyers keep law enforcement from going too far or from acting out of capriciousness or arbitrary motives. It is lawyers, or the fear of litigation that makes sure that defective products are recalled and those hurt by them are compensated; that babies born retarded due to lack of oxygen because a doctor's negligence allowed the umbilical chord to strangle the infant are taken care of for life; that the food we eat won't make us sick, that the brakes on our cars work; that an IUD that makes a woman permanently sterile is taken off the market; the list goes on....

Lawyers so a hell of a lot more good than bad. And for the record I'm a family lawyer, but defending the indefensible is the sworn duty of every citizen of a free thinking society. Lawyers just do it well.

Tort reform: Kiss My Ass!

We don't have decent health care in this country because the insurance company and HMO lobbyists would be out of a job, those same lobbyists want tort reform so they can increase their profit margin. If a doctor permanently destroys a person though ignorance or stupidity, how do you put a price on that permanent disability. Lawyers do it every day and present their demand to the insurance company. When the company says "are you kidding? Here's a couple thousand, now go away," the lawyer makes his case to 12 honest people who sometimes grant even less than the company's offer. Those cases with no award don't make headlines, but are much more common than you know. And if there is no award because the lawyer screwed up, then his/her malpractice carrier should pay up.

Fear of getting sued keeps me on my toes, it works for doctors and auto mechanics too. Major corporations don't care. If they don't run the risk of punative damage awards and large pain and suffering judgments, they can cap out their risk calculation, include all injury claims as merely the cost of doing business and pass the cost on through insurance premiums and higher prices, with absolutely no incentive to find ways to better train or supervise personnel, including medical staff, or make sure their workplace and products are safe.

The richest lawyer I know owns an insurance company. He doesn't fight them like Edwards did.

I'm voting for Edwards on tuesday, I'll proudly vote for Kerry in the fall. MBA, gimme a break. At least the Shrub can say he has on-the-job experience now. But that still gives him fewer qualifcations than Cleveland when he ran for reelection. He still is the most unqualified man EVER to sit in the white house.

If Edwards won all his trials on their merits only, that means his role was superficial and should hardly count as useful experience for the presidency.

Being a lawyer is obviously good experience for Congress (even if you think lawyers suck). It seems less important for the presidency though. The president doesn't make laws, he runs stuff and makes broad judgements, so arguably an MBA as at least as good as being a lawyer. If you want the guy to have experience, it's irrelevant how he obtained that experience in the first place (for instance, if you want to know how well Bush could fly an F102, it doesn't matter that he wouldn't have learned without his fathers connections).

Mark, I must respecfully disagree with you. While you may see personal-injury lawyers as champions of the people, I do not in most, but not all, cases. When you show me that they make a habit of taking on cases that they know will not turn a profit then I'll believe you. Or When more than a dime of each dollar of medical liability insurance goes to injured patients, then I'll believe you.

Protecting women from the evil IUD? There was one that was bad, true, and all the rest went off the market as well for over ten years. So if a woman couldn't take the pill or afford a tubal ligation, too bad. How about Bendectin? You know, the medication with no proven ill effects that was forced off the market due to lawsuits? Well, we had to put women on other drugs that DO have risks because Bendectin was gone.

Look around. Why aren't there any diving boards at the pools? Where are all the teeter-totters? Why does my lift ticket cost $60? Why don't the podiatrists in my state have any liabilty coverage at all? Why did the OB doctors in Las Vegas close their practices and the trauma surgeons quit?

Yes, personal-injury lawyers have their place. However, they need to be reigned in. Some estimates place the unnecessary cost of defensive medicine high enough to cover every uninsured person in the US, if the money were redirected appropriately. Being on the inside of the system, I know that is true.

Dani:

Why does my lift ticket cost $60?

Why does my health insurance cost $5 thousand?

Mark Adams:

Tort reform: Kiss My Ass!

LOL!

Mark,

It's certainly true that fear of being sued keeps all of us on our toes. The trouble is that there is precisely one category of people who are immune from being sued by causing harm to others: trial lawyers.

Trials are expensive things. A company that has in fact done no wrong may nevertheless be sued because of the (carefully crafted) appearance of wrongdoing, and they may be sued over and over again. The Bendectin cases are the perfect example here. Some fraction of the mothers who took Bendectin give birth to babies with birth defects (and never mind that the same fraction of mothers who didn't take the drug gave birth to babies with birth defects!). There were enough individual cases of Bendectin usage and birth defects that some of these could go to court, and so there were multiple lawsuits against Bendectin's manufacturer. *None* of these lawsuits prevailed, but Bendectin was pulled from the market anyway, because the profits from Bendectin sales were overshadowed from the cost of defending Bendectin in court.

And oh, by the way, Bendectin was a drug to relieve severe morning sickness; women with this problem, who do not have access to such medication, are *more* likely to have babies with medical problems than if they are treated. Good job, trial lawyers! You've made the world safe once again.

You are absolutely right when you say that defense lawyers are needed to stop runaway prosecutors. In the same way, we need a mechanism to stop runaway lawsuits and we don't have one. We also need a mechanism to ensure that a wealthy corporation can't just stall a poor plaintiff, using systematic delays to out-spend them and win. Fortunately, many coutries already have such mechanisms in place.

The best tort reform, and one which is already in place in many countries, is this: either side in a legal dispute that *wastes the other side's time* would be required to reimburse the other side's legal fees for that wasted time.

Spend two days making questionable arguments that the jury just doesn't buy, and you owe the other side two days' worth of legal fees, *even if you win the case*. If the other side agrees to settle for X, but you go to court anyway and the jury awards you something less than X, you pay the other guy's entire legal bill. A company that stalls for two months against that poor plaintiff because they have no case just ends up paying everybody's legal fees for those two months. Launch a specious lawsuit, and if the jury agrees that it's specious, you compensate the other side for the trouble you caused them.

This leads to shorter trials where only the best arguments for each side are brought forth, and leads to far more settlements of similar value. It restrains abuses on both sides of the aisle in civil cases.

This kind of tort reform is desparately needed. Whether it's what we'll get is a different story.

In the same way, we need a mechanism to stop runaway lawsuits and we don't have one.

Yes we do. It's called "a judge." As an extra bonus we can also call in "a jury."

A company that stalls for two months against that poor plaintiff because they have no case just ends up paying everybody's legal fees for those two months.

Unfortunately, legal fees are often a MUCH smaller portion of a defendant's disposable income than that of the plaintiff. As such, the incentive is still there for a defendant to jerk the plaintiff around and get away with it.

Ara, judges typically do not throw out lawsuits of even questionable value. Juries don't even get the option to throw out lawsuits; all they can do is find for one side or the other. IMO, the best way of curtailing a large number of shenanigans is the system I described above.

Under that system, a rich defendant could jerk around a plaintiff all they liked, but they wouldn't "get away" with anything, because the *plaintiff* isn't pouring her money into her lawyer's pocket; every stall called for by the defendant would cause the defendant to pay both lawyers for the trouble.