Hello wingas:

Have you heard the one about "a conservative is a liberal who got mugged"? Ha, ha. How about the one "a liberal has a heart, but a conservative has a brain"? Ha, ha again.

How about this one? A conservative judge, who almost made it to the Supreme Court, and who once complained that “juries dispense lottery-like windfalls”, is actually a liberal plaintiff in disguise, after he fell down and bumped his head. He's suing for MILLIONS.

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

I guess Liberals haven't completely cornered the "do as I say ........" market. Bork of course exposed himself long before now. He filed and opined a lot in the US anti-trust lawsuit v Microsoft in favor of the government. He also is not in favor of personal gun ownership so off the bat I would question his conservative boni fides.

Punitive settlements are a blight on the system . If he is asking for them then he is wrong. I'm still strongly in favor of tort reform.

The system would work much better if there was a penalty of some kind to plaintiffs who file suits frivolously ;at least equal to cover court costs and expenses of the defendant wrongfully accused.

Is the suit frivolous? Or is there a real cause in the suit? Did Bork fall because someone was negligent? Or did he fall without anything to cause it? I don't have the facts. Do you?

If you do have the facts, please pass them along. I'm willing to believe that Bork is hypocritical if you can provide the information that shows it. He certainly wouldn't be the first hypocrite in the Republican party, nor will he be the last.

Besides, nobody is right all the time. Even I made a mistake once--- I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken: I was right.

By the way: how is liberalism like cotton candy? Because it looks good and at first taste is very sweet, but after experiencing it for a while you realize that it is made up mostly of fluff and hot air with no real substance and isn't very good for you.

Elliot

At least it was over more than a pair of pants. After reading the complaint I'm willing to let the jury sort it out. I'm with tom though, I think a penalty is in order for anyone that files a frivilous lawsuit and gets caught at it. Here is a copy of the complaint (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/borksuit-060607.pdf) (.pdf).

What's the difference between a liberal on a Harley and a vacuum cleaner? The vacuum has the dirt bag on the inside. :D

I've heard that a liberal has an education and has travelled, a conservative has never left his county.

Tom,
It was just a joke, just like the others in this thread. C'mon!! :D

And calling a Liberal a dirt bag is not? I'll leave you guys to your special sensitive friends club.

You're right . I did over react .

And calling a Liberal a dirt bag is not? I'll leave you guys to your special sensitive friends club.

That may be the first time "sensitive" has been used to describe any of us on a forum like this :D

I am in favor of tort reform. What I would like to see is a 'grand jury' for civil cases that decides whether a civil suit has merit or not. It would work similar to a grand jury in criminal cases: the plaintiff's attorney would be forced to prove that a case has merit before it can be brought before a petite jury or civil judge for adjudication. The grand jury would not try the case, just judge whether it has merit. That way, obviously frivolous cases will get thrown out, and cases that have some level of merit get through the system faster. I don't like the idea of capping awards because there may be cases where a large award is merited, and an arbitrary cap would keep that award from being given. A grand jusry for civil cases creates an extra layer of protection against frivolous suits without limiting the award in cases with true merit.

Elliot