Okay, how about this one:
Q: How many plaintiffs’ lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Three. One to climb the ladder. One to shake it. One to sue the ladder company.
* * *
Speaking of lawyers and tort lawsuits:
Bush administration crafts rules to limit tort lawsuits
Faced with a hostile Congress, the Bush administration has found another, quieter way to make it more difficult for Democrat plaintiffs’ attorneys to file lawsuits against businesses for allegedly-faulty products: It’s rewriting the bureaucratic rulebook.
Pretty crafty of Bush & Co., eh?
Lawsuit limits have been included in 51 rules proposed or adopted since 2005 by agencies governing just about everything Americans use: Rx drugs, cars, railroads, medical devices and food.
Decried by left-wing consumer advocates and embraced by industry and pro-economy conservative groups, the agencies’ use of their rule-making authority represents the administration’s final act in a long-standing drive to shield companies from vexatious and ruinous lawsuits by Democrat-sponsoring plaintiffs’ lawyers.
That’s true, Ross Perot, presidents and their administrations have vast and often unilateral powers. Go figure.
Later this year, the U.S. Supreme Court will wade into the issue of federal preemption as it relates to lawsuits and prescription drug labeling. A pharmaceutical company defending itself against a lawsuit is contending the suit is barred because the FDA had approved the warning label on its drug. The company is trying to overturn a $6.8 million award given to a woman whose arm had to be amputated after a negligent doctor inadvertently injected the company’s anti-nausea medication into an artery.
Well, since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of businesses and against Democrat lawyers over 80% of the time since Justice Alito replaced Justice O’Connor, I don’t think it’s all that presumptuous to presume the drug industry will prevail in that case.
* * *
Incidentally, liberal law professors and their young sycophants might be inclined to project their leftism here under the guise of “states’ rights.” It’s a weak argument; cynical and disingenuous too. There are the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses. They’re right there — in the U.S. Constitution. Plus the doctrines of preemption and the so-called “dormant Commerce Clause” have been on the books longer than Robert Byrd has been a racist.
* * *
Here’s a link to the AP article on which this entry is based. For obvious reasons it’s couched in far different terms. The author and editor are biased and their agenda is tissue-paper transparent. Yet the article still is worth a perusal. There’s lots of interesting info there — especially between and behind the lines.
* * *