??????? Former United States Senator Fred Thompson is certainly positioning himself for an unconventional campaign quest for the presidency in 2008, more evidence of which is his interest in directly engaging the general?public through posts at Red State. His latest is a rebuttal to Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review, who wrote a recent article criticizing the former Senator’s voting record in a couple of instances as to tort reform.
I was struck by a couple of things in Senator Thompson’s post.
First, I think he correctly identifies increasing overreach by Congress under the Commerce Clause and given the principle of preemption (whereby federal law trumps state and local law under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI because the Constitution and laws and treaties made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land) as a serious threat to liberty. And you don’t hear enough conservatives and presidential candidates talking about this, it seems to me. Lately we are hearing politicians use federalism as a defense for not taking firm positions on issues like abortion, gun control, and marriage that clearly have federal implications as of today.
Secondly, Senator Thompson references a reality that is important, I think, in judging the consistency and credibility of candidates, elected officials, and judges. Adhering to principles (such as federalism, in this case) may lead to troublesome results, but the person of character sticks to their rules as creating the greater long-run good and?lives with occasionally unpleasant results when circumstances necessarily invoke such guidelines. Those who are?always seeking politically favorable outcomes as their?primary goal?are going to have to abandon any pretense of principle because adhering to rules won’t always provide the results they seek.
As an example, do folks remember the potato chip case that Democrat Senators tried to beat Chief Justice John Roberts up with during his confirmation hearings? Evidently the District of Columbia passed an ordinance making it a crime to eat on the subway. A little girl was arrested for eating potato chips on a Washington, D.C. subway. She sued, claiming the?ordinance was unconstitutional. On appeal before the Federal Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit, then Judge Roberts voted against the little girl. Being true to his principles, Judge Roberts concluded that even though the?ordinance in question was silly and stupid and embarrassing, the District of Columbia had a right to pass it and the girl was clearly in violation of it. A horrible result, a young girl being arrested for eating potato chips, required by sticking to the law. Good for Judge Roberts.
Good for Senator Thompson.
Good and refreshing stuff, I think.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
It is time for me to finally break down and become an official FREDBOT:
The man has class. Even if you don’t agree with him on things, you have to admit, he has class. I only need to refer to Neil Cavuto’s article; “A Man Alone.” He responds in a matter only a leader would respond. He comes directly to the people, not through a bunch of advisers or press agents.
That’s why Thompson’s supporters are so gung-ho for his possible elections. This is how he did things in Tennnessee, and this is how he does things now. I’m not suggesting that he’ll keep blogging if he’s elected President, but the man has class. There won’t be pre approved questions that have to get the ok from a bunch of advisers before he’s interviewed on a show. The man speaks his mind in an intelligent manner. That is so refreshing in today’s disgusting world of politics.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
AMEN REPUBLIUS
This is a major issue, or should be, for conservatives. Thanks for highlighting it.
Mike
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Okay, I’ve turned Fredbot mode off. So now i’ll go back to being regular old FDT supporting Tommy.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Amen Tommy, and this is how Reagan connected, ie directly. You should read Reagan’s Life in Letters as well as In His own hand.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Ramesh has already posted a counter rebuttal. Setting aside the argument, I tend to think the redstaters are awestruck by Fred.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjliNjY2YTFjMjY4NmRmOGQ5OTVjMjE2ZWM2NTYzMzg=
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I’ve read In His Own Hand. I have a copy of Life in Letters, but haven’t gotten around to reaing it yet. I read a lot so I always have a couple of books at the same time, usually Cormac McCarthy stuff, but I’ve been meaning to get to Life in Letters for a while, just haven’t gotten around to it yet, but I will.
In his Own Hand was excellent, and really opened my eyes to how much of an understanding he had of what he believed in and how strong his own convictions were. That is what makes me think of Reagan when I read this and others from Thompson. Not the acting similarities, but they were both deep thinkers. I try not to compare the two, because it usually makes supporters of the other candidates mad, but stuff like this does remind me of him.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Here is a link the Ponnuru’s response.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjliNjY2YTFjMjY4NmRmOGQ5OTVjMjE2ZWM2NTYzMzg=
I haven’t done any real research so I don’t know Thompson’s position on tort reform, but if he is against tort reform there is no chance I could vote for him in a primary. (especially with regard to medical liability, seeing that I am in medical school)
I am not saying that is his current position, but he did screw everyone out of medical liability reform back in 1995 and his vague answer on federalism is a dodge at best, especially considering he is a former trial attorney.
I am only going to vote for a candidate who has tort reform (especially medical tort reform) as part of his platform, not just a nice thing he supports generally.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
One of the most amazing things about Reagan are the number of influential people like Laffer and the SDI designers that he met thru letters before their ideas were implemented by him; his truly brilliant economic mind and education at Eureka; and that he was a blogger before their was blogging!
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
That’s the truth. Reagan was Reagan, and his thought process and how much effort he put into thinking out his positions and defining himself is amazing to me.
I’m in Tennessee and we are hardcore excited about Thompson’s potential.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Official FREDBOT MODE ON:
MN, It’s not that their awestruck by Thompson posting there. They are awestruck by a candidate who actually lays out his argument to them, the people. He doesn’t respond through handlers, he responds with his own thought.
That’s a very rare thing in politics these days.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
First off, since I have never commented on Fred Thompson on this site, let me say this: I welcome him into the race. I welcome anyone into the race that wants to try their hand at the Presidency, because that’s what democracy is all about. Huckabee and Gilmore try my patience with that principle because they should be running in their respective Senate races, but I digress.
I will not fight to knock Thompson down before he enters the race and will not say he should not run because of X, Y, or Z.
Having said all of that, I think this is a great philosophical debate that conservatives should have. And I happen to think Fred Thompson is dead wrong on it. But I appreciate him explaining where he’s coming from and at least opening the debate.
His reasoning, without getting into specifics of tobacco and candlestick makers(!), goes something like this: some conservatives want tort reform at a federal level. However, by the principles of federalism, which conservatives ought to adhere to, tort reform must necessarily happen at a state level. Conservatives ought not support, therefore, federal tort reform that supersedes state laws – even in instances where the outcome would be preferred had federal legislation been passed; and, he says, even in situations where the federal government knows that the state isn’t going to take care of the problem.
Thompson’s glaring mistake is twofold. First, he places a sacred commitment to a philosophy over a pragmatic commitment to conservative results. It is good to shield doctors or gun manufacturers or tobacco companies from frivolous lawsuits because it encourages economic growth and freedom and pushes a culture of personal responsibility. Secondly, he fails to recognize the nature of doing business in America – across state lines oftentimes – and the nature of lawsuits, which also cross borders. To no one’s immediate surprise, I believe Mitt Romney addressed this issue quite well in his major economic position speech in Detroit several months back:
“Another burden on our economic future is our out-of-control tort system. Last year, U.S. corporations spent more money on tort claims than they did on R&D. If innovation is the key to our long term leadership, then some tort lawyers are cashing out our country’s future. I spoke with one member of the plaintiff’s bar the other day. He said that the tort lawyers are ok with state reform, but not national reform. You know what state level tort reform means – it means that as long as there is one lawsuit-friendly state, they can sue almost any major, deep-pocketed company in America. No thanks, America needs national tort reform.”"
Thus, Thompson willingly abandons conservative actions and conservative results to chase some nebulous conservative philosophy. No philosophy is going to fit in every single situation. Being in favor of federal tort reform isn’t an abandonment of conservatism as Thompson claims. Rather, it is the triumph of one conservative principle over another. And I believe Thompson is on the wrong end of that stick.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Living in a state where tort reform is a big deal right now (Wyoming), I can say I see the effects of not having that reform in place. In my town, there is currently one women’s clinic where my wife can go for an OB/GYN. There used to be more, but they skipped town for Colorado, Montana, or even California where medical malpractice insurance is cheaper. In a neighboring town 45 minutes a way, a friend of mine went to her regularly scheduled OB/GYN appointment when she was pregnant, only to find a note taped to the door of the doctor’s office saying that they had shut their doors and moved because malpractice insurance was too expensive here. That left exactly one OB/GYN in that town as well.
In 2004, we had two constitutional amendments on the ballot to begin tort reform. One required a lawsuit cap on emotional damages and one required lawsuits to pass through a board before proceeding to the courts. After an ingenuous campaign of massive disinformation (“Amendment C will take away your right to sue!”) the latter passed, the former did not. Malpractice insurance rates still remain high in this state. I would love to see federal tort reform that allows Wyoming to once again attract quality doctors (or, really, any doctors at this point) and increase our quality of care to our citizens. But with Thompson in charge, it wouldn’t happen, all because he’s beholden to ideological conservatism rather than practical conservatism.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
You maybe right, HeavyM. I, by no means, am an expert on Tort reform, and just have a passing knowledge on anything but the specifics. So I’m not going to debate his position on this, and I haven’t done the research to know exactly what he has voted, and I’m no medical student, nor did I major in law.
I can post his record and some analysis on his votes and you guys can form your own opinions.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I meant that I’m no expert on it, as opposed to being one.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Tommy,
“I’m no medical student, nor did I major in law.”
Nor did I, my friend. I may be out of my league on some of the specifics of tort reform… however, I do know that I support federal tort reform on the grounds listed above.
I’d love to hear what you think of federal versus state tort reform, and not just what Thompson thinks. As I mentioned above, I think it is a valuable debate to have and would love to engage in a conversation with anyone here who is willing. That’s the benefit of having opposing views expressed in a race like this. I may completely disagree with Fred, but he’s opening the doors of debate which is a good thing.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
This is what I can provide you with:
In answer to his critics on tort reform one of them complains that he is “in the pocket” of his fellow trial lawyers Thompson has a single word, which he freely expands on: federalism. The question, says Thompson, should not be, “Do we think people are being sued too much this week?” It should be, “Do we believe that certain decisions ought to be made at certain levels of government?” Moreover, “we’re not supposed to legislate by anecdote.” For every “coffee-in-the-lap” story, Thompson and others are happy to provide a tale of a litigant unjustly squashed.
- Jay Nordlinger, National Review, May 17, 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1805040/posts
*
Mr. Thompson has also been criticized for failing to back some comprehensive tort-reform bills because of his background as a trial lawyer. Here he insists his stance was based on grounds of federalism. “I’m consistent. I address Federalist Society meetings,” he says, noting that more issues should be left to the states. For example, he cast the lonely “nay” in 99-1 votes against a national 0.8% blood alcohol level for drivers, a federal law banning guns in schools, and a measure limiting the tort liability of Good Samaritans. “Washington overreaches, and by doing so ends up not doing well the basics people really care about.” Think Katrina and Walter Reed.
Indeed, the federal government’s inability to function effectively would likely be a major theme of any Thompson campaign. “Audits have shown we’ve lost control of the waste and mismanagement in our most important agencies. It’s getting so bad it’s affecting our national security.”
- John Fund, WSJ Opinion Journal, March 17, 2007
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009798
*
Thompson’s record in the Senate, with few exceptions, was rather solidly conservative. His breaks from the right were almost all related to campaign finance reform issues and to tort reform. (He practiced law before entering politics.) In ’02, for example, as a strong supporter of McCain-Feingold, he broke with most conservative senators to support limiting donations to federal candidates to $2,000 per year and opposed a measure to require medical malpractice suits against doctors and medical providers to be filed within two years of discovering an injury. In ’01, Thompson voted for three measures to enhance government regulation of campaign finance and, in a rare break with fiscal conservatives on taxes, he opposed an accelerated elimination of the marriage penalty. His overall record on fiscal issues, however, is conservative. In ’02, the National Taxpayers Union rated Thompson 73%, making him the 7th best senator in the NTU ratings of lawmakers on spending issues.
- John Gizzi, Human Events Blogs, March 14, 2007
http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?id=21482&title=tennessee_s_griscom_says_thompson_s_4_to
*
The basic political problem, Horowitz believes, is that the cap on pain and suffering awards (which the Senate refused to adopt) is too easily caricatured as taking rights away from consumers with no visible payoff. Freshman Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee said that he couldn’t — and wouldn’t — explain such a limit to the parents of a severely injured child.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n18_v47/ai_17498645
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 pm
I am doing two things at once, so sorry it might take a second.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 pm
My initial thought is to tip my hat to Fred here. I agree completely with the notion that adhering to principle is, in the vast majority of cases, more important then obtaining a desireable result. And I believe this most strongly in the area of constitutional law. In particular, I too agree that the Commerce Clause has been expanded beyond all sense and reason. But I can’t say, with my fairly minimal constitutional knowledge on the subject, that federal tort reform would necessarily be unconstitutional under originalism. I just don’t know the answer to the question, though I’m disinclined to believe that it’s as clear a case as Thompson wants us to believe. But I commend him for at least mentioning, and taking into account, that concern. But I disagree with his more significant argument. While I agree that state’s are useful as laboratories of Democracy in a broad sense, I don’t think that this functions as a reasonable argument against federal laws. That is to say, I don’t believe federalism is about allowing states to decide issues simply because they’re states and are thus more significant. The federal government’s reinvention after the Articles of Confederation put that idea to rout. We don’t live in a confederacy, loose or otherwise. Federalism isn’t even about allowing the states to decide controversial issues (though you could argue, on other grounds, that state by state decisions on controversial issues would likely create more durable, acceptable, and adjustable solutions). Federalism is fundamentally built into the constitution, by limitations on the federal government’s powers. Any power the federal government wasn’t thought to have at the time of the constitutions inception is left to the state’s. There’s your federalism. The federal government ought to refrain from enacting unconstitutional, and overly broad (power-wise) legislation. If it’s constitutional, then opposing it on federalist grounds is simply bizarre. Which is where Thompson’s gets dicey I think. Because while he mentions the possibility that federal tort reform might be unconstitutional, his bigger arguments seem to stem from a simple belief that because the states are enacting, or actively choosing not to enact, tort reform, then the federal government needn’t necessarily be involved, regardless of the constitutionality of the statutes at issue. And that’s not federalism, but an abdication of responsibility.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
The terminology is very difficult, so I might sound ridiculous, and it is a very complicated subject, and can only go on my instincts.
It’s basically something that I’m torn on. Instinctively, I see it as a state issue. I guess I have federalist instincts, in a sense, that I tend to support state delegation. However, I really think, for me, it is a no win situation. For example, I find it difficult to put a cap on a families pain who could’ve lost a child to a drunk driving incident. At the same time, I tend to agree that, from a law perspective, litigation can get out of control. It’s something that I’m not really comfortable taking sides on. It gnaws at my fundamental beliefs, my fairness beliefs and my social beliefs.
cont…
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I tend to look at things psychologically, and principally.
and I can see the point about litigation gone haywire, but I can’t put a price on psychological damage that is caused from a human standpoint.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
If you can make sense of what I’m saying. I just really have a moral crisis when it comes to addressing pain or personal injury vs monetary damage. I have known people to get hit with gigantic lawsuits, but they caused the death of four innocent people while driving drunk.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
What is right? I don’t know. That’s me talking, not my candidate.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
I’m not a big fan of pain and suffering awards period. I think awards for loss of income, over a lifetime or otherwise, are perfectly valid and welcome. But I don’t think you can even begin to compensate individuals for pain and suffering, and I don’t think that we ought to cripple our medical and legal system’s trying.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
you make good points. I think pain is unmeasurable by wealth standards, and I don’t know of any “right’ way to compensate for loss. Is financial reward the best way? I can’t say if it is or not.
I’m going to bed. It’s 12:30 here. I can barely keep my eyes open since I’ve had a long week. Talk to y’all later.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Federalism is a great idea, but it isn’t a great idea piecemeal. A situation where Republican ideas never get implemented because of federalism, while federalism never stops Democratic ideas, is worse than no federalism at all. But I can respect Thompson’s different opinion. Its a strike against him, in my book, but not a big one.
I also think that even under federalism some kinds of tort reform are okay for the federal government to do, since they involve the national economy.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Matt, as usual, I agree with you. When it comes to trying to obtain a desired result, even when it’s a conservative one, too often principle gives way to expedience. I think principle should not be ignored soley because we want the results now – that’s the liberal way.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Its against federalism for states to act outside their proper spheres. This includes lawsuits that are so massive tt they effect the entire national market, like in the tobacco litigation.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:44 am
I think Thompson is using Federalism as a dodge on this issue, just as McCain uses it on Gay marriage. It worries me and I want to know more because Thompson is a former trial attorney and it seems like his loyalties may be with them and not what is best for the rest of us. To be fair, I believe that Thompson thinks he did what was best for America, I just think he is wrong.
If he were a strict federalist, which he is not, (I don’t know how a modern Senator could be one) then maybe he would have more credibility. He has objected to otherwise good and conservative legislation on federalist grounds in 2 cases that we know of. (Tort-reform and a Good Samaritan law)
Those two objections on the “noble grounds of federalism” happen to coincide with the interests of Trial Lawyers. That worries me and I want to hear more specifics from him so we don’t elect a Republican President who sides with trial lawyers instead of doing what is best for the country.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Tort law is necessary in medicine because of the incentives for healthcare workers to skimp on quality because of the obligation to provide service to everyone. At this point the threat of a costly lawsuit is the main driver to prevent malpractice.
Reforming tort law so far hasn’t been proposed in an economically reasonable fashion. I guess that’s because generally judges/lawyers don’t like math. Neither do politicians.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Econ, I totally disagree with your insulting implication. You have no basis for your claim that the threat of a lawsuit keeps doctors from deliberately harming their patients as you imply. The reason you have no facts to back up your insulting claim is because it is flat out wrong.
First off, doctors don’t have any obligation to provide service to everyone. Only Emergency Rooms are required to take all comers, other doctors can reject any patient for virtually any reason. I assume that your faulty logic is based on the incentives you think doctors have to provide poor care so they can finish their busy schedule (?), or maybe you think doctors would provide poor care because they are in it for the money.
30 years ago were doctors just screwing everyone and providing poor care? Did the trial lawyers save us from all the bad doctors?
Doctors had no more of an obligation to provide service then than they do now. Your logic doesn’t make any sense and I am suprised that you didn’t research this more before you made such an inflammatory comment.
Lawsuits do drive up the cost of healthcare for everyone as doctors practice defensive medicine. It was estimated 10 years ago that the practice of defensive medicine (ordering extra, unnecessary tests and treatments so lawyers can’t even bring a claim) increased the cost of healtcare by 5-9% or 60 to 106 BILLION dollars a year.
I know as an economist you only talk in incentives. In this case your supposed incentive is not valid, but I really can’t believe that you really think doctors would deliberately provide sub-standard care so that they could leave the office a little sooner. Your claim is not only insulting, it is also dead wrong.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Contrary to what you may think the majority of people that go into medicine (especially in the past decade or so) do so because they really want to help people, not because they want to get rich.
There have been studies that show doctors earn relatively less than business students, attorneys and dentists when the length of training and costs of education are considered. Most pre-medical students are warned about the negatives of being a doctor and do so not for the money, but because they desire the incentive of feeling good about your job that comes from helping people.
I was a business major in undergrad and most of my fellow classmates are making a bunch of money right now, and will only be making more 6 years from now when I am finally finished with my training and start paying off the $150,000+ that I will be in debt. I have several friends that will be able to retire by that time. Being a doctor will be a great living and I am happy to be doing it, but if I wanted to be rich I would go be an investment banker or mortgage broker or something similar.
For the record, physician reimbursment rates are down while the costs of being a doctor are up significantly. This translates to much lower take home pay for doctors. Also, healthcare is the most regulated industry in the United States most doctors will be sued at least once with groundless claims that cost doctors time and money. It is still a great profession, but don’t act like doctors are in it for the money.
This link has several documents regarding physician payment rates and the costs of running a medical practice.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14332.html
April 24th, 2007 at 2:04 am
I didn’t insinuate doctors would deliberately harm their patients. The truth is that absent lawsuits healthcare workers have an incentive to give substandard care to people based on their ability to pay. Tort and federal regulations prevent this type of third degree price discrimination.
This isn’t some abstract moral question it is simply economic reality. If you have consumers who can afford good care and consumer who can only afford substandard care you give the service that each can pay for and make the most profit. This happens in every unregulated market besides healthcare. In healthcare this is prevented by tort law. Doctors wouldn’t do this to leave the office sooner they’d do it to make the most money.
April 24th, 2007 at 2:47 am
Your argument still represents a superficial and faulty understanding of healthcare economics. You have attempted to apply broad and general economic principles to a sector of the economy where you are apparently ignorant.
Doctors get paid approximately the same amount by the each of different insurance providers according to the codes that they bill for. The insurance plans each follow the lead of Medicare and set their prices based off Medicare rates. Thus doctors would have no incentive to provide substandard care to some patients based on how much they would be paid because they are paid the same by all patients (Your argument really just doesn’t make any sense)
Since their are so many insurance providers most doctors only accept some of the many insurance providers in their area. If a doctor doesn’t believe he is being paid enough by company x, he drops that insurance plan and the patients go to other doctors for their care.
When people get healthcare, they get top quality healthcare. You may be confusing uninsured people with those that have insurance and are receiving care.
It is true that people without health insurance do not receive non-emergency medical care, however the fear of lawsuits doesn’t have anything to do with people not having health insurance. On the contrary, the huge costs of medical torts and defensive medicine mean that insurance companies have to charge higher premiums, which is the cause of the high number of uninsured people. Tort reform would lower the costs of healthcare without sacrificing quality. This would enable many more people to afford healthcare.
You may want to get a textbook that deals specifically with healthcare economics if you want to keep posting on the subject. I don’t believe there is an economic book or professor that would teach the nonsense that you are posting. If you want you can keep changing the supposed “incentives” that cause doctors to give sub-standard care and I will keep refuting those claims with facts, of which you are apparently unaware.
April 24th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Tort reform really needs to happen. This really hurts Fred Thompson with me. I’d wanted to support him but he seems like he puts the interests of lawyers ahead of the interests of the common people. At this point there just doesn’t appear to be a solid candidate in the race on our side. I don’t how the heck we’re going to win when voters are itching to vote Democrat over Iraq.
April 24th, 2007 at 3:57 am
#24 Henry Heavner Says:
“Federalism is a great idea, but it isn’t a great idea piecemeal. A situation where Republican ideas never get implemented because of federalism, while federalism never stops Democratic ideas, is worse than no federalism at all. But I can respect Thompson’s different opinion. Its a strike against him, in my book, but not a big one.
I also think that even under federalism some kinds of tort reform are okay for the federal government to do, since they involve the national economy.”
I’ve got to agree it seems like some issues have to be handled federally or lawyers will run amok.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Heavy Heavner: Federalism doesn’t stop democratic ideas because they are unprincipled in their lawmaking, not because it’s a bad principle. If conservatives and the general public would wake up and stand up to their claims of supporting a limited national government then many of the rediculous “democrat ideas” wouldn’t go anywhere.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:20 am
I support Tort reform, even some on a federal level. But, if we’re doing it on a federal level, we should do it because we can make a case that the constitution allows for it, and not because our states have decided to become tort-friendly. If we are doing what’s easiest, and that doesn’t work, then where do we go? the Courts?
April 24th, 2007 at 9:04 am
After thinking about the issue some more, I’m feeling fairly confident that, under current precedent at least, federal tort reform would be almost unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. Tort reform directly effects monetary issues, and very clearly is something that takes place on an interstate basis. Indeed, the very argument for tort reform nationally, is premised on the idea that state tort reform can’t be taken seriously because of the way tort laws cross state boundaries. I think even under an originalist interpretation of the constitution (which is stricter then current precedent on the matter), federal tort reform passes muster.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Federalism doesn’t stop democratic ideas because they are unprincipled in their lawmaking, not because it’s a bad principle. If conservatives and the general public would wake up and stand up to their claims of supporting a limited national government then many of the rediculous “democrat ideas” wouldn’t go anywhere.
I think it would be great if conservatives and the general public stood up for federalism. Until then, a President Thompson vetoing tort reform only helps the Dems. This is especially true given that the Dems have already enacted much of their big government agenda into law. The only real solution is for the Supreme Court to start taking federalism seriously.
Even in the unlikely event that the Supreme Court started taking federalism seriously, however, tort reform would probably still be legitimate. What the Supreme Court would do is say that the Commerce Clause is limited to
to legislation with economic purposes, which tort reform probably qualifies as. This is where the Supreme Court was going in Lopez before they backed off.