[newsmax.com] The right to seek justice in a court of law is fundamental to our American way of life. If a person has been wronged, cheated or hurt by the actions of another, whether intentionally or negligently, the injured party is entitled to just compensation. That's only fair. So I hold a deep respect for the right of individuals to access our civil courts.

But like President Bush, I still believe that we must make reforming our system of civil litigation a top priority in 2005. We need commonsense reforms that will restrict frivolous lawsuits, abolish joint and several liability provisions, and limit outrageous punitive damage awards that are completely out of proportion to actual losses.

continued at:

http://newsmax.com/archives/article...13/173505.shtml

I agree in your assumption that we need "commonsense" reforms to stop frivilous lawsuits. But tort reform is difenitely "commonsense." Who has the final say in a lawsuit? That's simple...a judge or jury. Why do we allow judges that make some of these ridiculous, and sometimes grossly unconstitutional, decisions to remain in power? And insomuch as juries, how often do we hear this confession from jurors?... "I knew it was ridiculous and unfair but I had no choice but to find the defendant gulity!" Wrong! You do have a choice! We have the Constitutional right to judge not only the facts in a court case but also the other circumstances in the court case, including the law itself! Why then, do we allow our court system to lie to jurors regarding their rights before a trial? Ever hear this one?: "You are to judge the facts in this case and the facts alone" or "If the glove fits, you must aquit." Those are lies. Yet, when anyone tries to tell a jury otherwise and inform them of their rights, it's considered "contempt of court" and "jury tampering" and becomes a crime!

I wish fixing our legal system was as easy as tort reformers seem to think it is, but it's not. Our justice sytem is circling the drain and, passing a few more stupid laws will only lead down the tubes all the quicker. I'm not a political science expert and I don't have every answer as I write this but I have some valid suggestions. I live in Missouri and our new Governor, Matt Blunt, is a big proponent of tort reform, which makes me wonder were his true priorities may lie. If he was truly worried about frivilous lawsuits, why does he not use his power, or at least his prestige, as Governor to get these activist judges off the bench? Was he not sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States or at least the Missouri constitution? If so, he should use his executive power to dethrone these people.

I'm pretty sure George Bush has the same executive power to do this at the federal level, yet he does not use this power either. Here's a funny story while we're on the subject...

In 1999, Bush's daughter Jenna was involved in a fender-bender with someone driving an Enterprise rental car. No one was hurt and insurance covered all the damage in the accident. The driver of this Enterprise rental car though, was driving on a suspended license, so Dubya sued Enterprise. Because the other driver had a suspended license, Bush reasoned that Enterprise, not the driver that actually caused the accident, was responsible. The judge or jury in this case seemd to agree because Bush won this lawsuit.

I found this interesting presentation on tort reform at www.paralegaltech.com:

http://paralegaltech.com/lectures/takeonnews/news.asp

(the site is for an online paralegal program, but they put out presentations on news topics and the one on tort reform is very interesting)