Justinian Lane

Greta Van Susteren on Tort Reform & Activist Judges

Good work, Greta:

First…activist judges…what are they? They are Judges who write decisions you don’t like! It means they essentially make up staff that just isn’t there. If you like it, you don’t complain and you believe they are interpreting the existing statute. If you don’t agree with the outcome their decisions, you say they are adding stuff and simply not ruling on the words of the statute. It is that simple and yes, conservative judges / justices are activist when they invent exceptions to the search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment…so don’t think it is just the so called liberal ones.)
And tort reform? That usually means that politicians, fueled by insurance company lobbyists, and who are miles from the courtroom set artificial limits on what the jury - yes, the people - who are in the courtroom with first hand knowledge can compensate someone who has been hurt. You read about the rare instance of wild verdicts because the media reports the sensational and not the every day thousands and thousands of routine verdicts. Here is something else: these sensational verdicts are reported in the media but then the case is ignored a few days later when the judge - who has the power to reduce wild verdicts -reduces or sets aside the amount awarded by the jury. This latter action is not juicy and thus rarely gets reported.

Source: politics… « GretaWire

I’m surprised the Fox News website hasn’t spontaneously combusted from having to host this material.

Justinian Lane: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:32 PM, Jul 08, 2008 in Civil Justice | News
Permalink | Email to Friend


Isn't Greta a lawyer?

She is a criminal cult indoctrination victim defending the criminal cult hierarchy. Her rambling stream of consciousness self-serving remark is just a sign of her victimization. Isn't she also repeating a cliche or is her argument something she feels she just discovered?

All judicial review is insurrection against Article I Section 1 of the US Constitution and against any state constitution equivalent.

Most judicial review is biased toward lawyer job creation, rent seeking, and proceduralism. Some decision reduce lawyer profits. They are small concessions to a seething public that wants the blood of the little tyrants on the bench. Ask any random person on the bus, what do you think of lawyers, of judges? That answer explains the exceptional decisions that reduce proceduralism. The latter is bad faith and straight theft devoid of empirical justification.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | July 8, 2008 9:02 PM

If there is a legal commentator with less credibility than Van Susteren, I can't imagine who it would be. Barney the Dinosaur ??

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 7:00 AM

You mean the wife of a millionaire plaintiffs' lawyer opposes tort reform? Shocking! I never would have expected it!

Posted by: Ted | July 10, 2008 9:50 AM

So Ted, does that mean we shouldn't listen to all the millionaire executives who support tort reform?

Posted by: Justinian Lane | July 10, 2008 11:04 AM