Another Leading Conservative Rejects Tort Reform Proposals

Carter Wrenn offers another excellent analysis showing why conservatives should reject tort reform proposals.

A jury may still hear a medical malpractice case but it will not be told about Senator Rucho’s cap on how much restitution it can award for disfigurement, loss of limb and so on. Instead, the jury will hear the evidence, reach its verdict, determine damages, award whatever it decides is fair restitution and go home.

But, then, something odd happens.

If the jury awards a victim (say, for the loss of his legs) over $250,000, Senator Rucho reaches out of the State Senate and into the jury box and changes its verdict and the judge cuts the restitution to $250,000.

Now Bob Rucho will tell you he’s for less government and less government power but his bill extends the power of State Senators and Representatives into a place (the jury box) where common sense and the North Carolina Constitution says politicians ought not to be meddling.

In the end it boils down to this: Who do we trust to decide verdicts? Juries who hear evidence or politicians like Senator Rucho who take contributions from the Medical Society?

Read the full article here: Trial Lawyers [Carter Wrenn at Talking About Politics]

More conservatives against tort reform:

• Andrew Cochran [at the 7th Amendment Advocate]
• What Ronald Reagan REALLY Said About Tort Reform [Andrew Cochran at Injury Board]
• Tennessee’s current civil jury system doesn’t need fixing [Fred Thompson at The Tennessean]
• House Republican Calls H.R. 5 "Violation of the 10th Amendment" [Andrew Cochran at Injury Board]
• Sen. Rand Paul, Clarence Thomas, & 10th Amendment Advocates Agree on Commerce Clause Abuse [Andrew Cochran at Injury Board]
• Why Tea Partiers & Conservatives Should Oppose Federal Law Limiting Health Care Lawsuits [Andrew Cochran at Injury Board]
• Tort Reform, The Constitution and Limited Government [me at Injury Board]

[More on your 7th Amendment Rights]

(c) Copyright 2011 Brett A. Emison