f/k/a . . . the archives

September 25, 2004

the politics of pain

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 8:59 pm













md. v. jd? boxers

 

world of pain–
and the cherry blossoms
add to it!

 

                 from Kobayashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue  

one-breath pundit










    • I just heard Jennifer Ludden‘s NPR presentation on Tort Reform as a Campaign Issue (audio link,

      Sept. 25, 2004), billed as a talk with Frank Cross, Michael McCane, and Overlawyered’s Walter Olson

      on the “link between litigation and the economy.”   I think the “litigation does more good than bad”

      guys won this skirmish.







    • If you haven’t followed the sparring at Point of Law on Tort Reform and the Election, I urge you to

      do so.   Physician Ron Chusid (for Kerry) and Lawyer Ted Frank (for Bush) both have stamina,

      but no knockout punch.  We recently asked for a better definition of “frivolous lawsuit,” and the meritorious topic was considered by both Ted and Ron.







    • Check out Lessig vs. Tucker at the Legal Affairs Debate Club, on whether being a Trial Lawyer hurts John Edwards in the election. (via Ernie) — Champion of the underdog or shark in a suit?






  • Three things that pain me but seem to have no cure: (1) the idea that physicians and lawyers are natural enemies; (2) the purchase of the Democratic Party by Trial Lawyers, Inc.; and (3) the Republican Party’s blanket condemnation of “trial lawyers” and simplistic approach to tort reform. 

4 Comments

  1. Did Ron consider the topic? To me, he dodged it by calling it “minutia.”

    Comment by Ted — September 26, 2004 @ 6:25 pm

  2. Did Ron consider the topic? To me, he dodged it by calling it “minutia.”

    Comment by Ted — September 26, 2004 @ 6:25 pm

  3. Hey, Ted, I said “considered,” not “fully considered” or “usefully considered”.  [One-breath punditry can't be bothered with such minutia!]  Of course, at times, I just point and let the reader decide whether the writer has said anything worthwhile.
    Ron did point to an experience he had personally, where pre-review prevented a case “with no plausible connection between my care and the problems [the plaintiff] faced.”  That’s certainly one definition of frivolous.
    I’m waiting for George M. Wallace, Esq., to fulfill his promise to address this definition issue — and I bet he will do so fully and usefully.

    Comment by David Giacalone — September 26, 2004 @ 8:33 pm

  4. Hey, Ted, I said “considered,” not “fully considered” or “usefully considered”.  [One-breath punditry can't be bothered with such minutia!]  Of course, at times, I just point and let the reader decide whether the writer has said anything worthwhile.
    Ron did point to an experience he had personally, where pre-review prevented a case “with no plausible connection between my care and the problems [the plaintiff] faced.”  That’s certainly one definition of frivolous.
    I’m waiting for George M. Wallace, Esq., to fulfill his promise to address this definition issue — and I bet he will do so fully and usefully.

    Comment by David Giacalone — September 26, 2004 @ 8:33 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress