What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

The "fee shifting" SJHovey brings up is pretty clearly a strawman - nobody would seriously propose that. (would they?)
Not only has it been proposed, as I explained above for certain types of litigation, and in certain contracts, it's already in place.
I think it's pretty common sense that the intent of a "loser pays" reform would be:

1) If the plaintiff wins, he gets the award from the suit and has to pay his lawyers out of the award, keeping anything left over for himself. The defendant pays his own lawyers plus the amount of the award. This is exactly how it works now.
2) If the plaintiff loses, he pays his lawyer fees (if any - none if his attorney is working on a pure contingency basis) PLUS the defendant's (reasonable) lawyer fees as apportioned by the judge.
Seems a bit one-sided doesn't it? I maim you with my crappy machine. You win, you pay your own lawyer. I win, you pay both? No wonder businesses and insurance companies have had no success in getting this passed.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I just wish they did that for criminal cases. If the defendant gets acquitted or the prosecution drops the charges, then the state picks up the defendant's attorneys' fees. That would stop some frivolous prosecutions.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Not only has it been proposed, as I explained above for certain types of litigation, and in certain contracts, it's already in place. Seems a bit one-sided doesn't it? I maim you with my crappy machine. You win, you pay your own lawyer. I win, you pay both? No wonder businesses and insurance companies have had no success in getting this passed.

"When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones which open for us." --Alexander Graham Bell

There will ALWAYS be a loophole.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I just wish they did that for criminal cases. If the defendant gets acquitted or the prosecution drops the charges, then the state picks up the defendant's attorneys' fees. That would stop some frivolous prosecutions.
Interesting idea, but I don't think it would have the effect you propose.

First, I suspect a very high percentage of the defense attorney costs in this country are already borne by the county/state which is prosecuting. Although not typically for the high profile/celebrity crime cases we see on tv, a very high percentage of people charged with crimes rely upon the public defender system for their defense.

Second, unless the costs were coming out of the prosecutor's budget itself, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to the prosecutor. And what are you going to do if you're the state or county who has it's prosecutor run out of money due to paying defense costs, stop funding the office? Can't do that. And many of those prosecutors are elected public officials anyway, so it's not like you could just fire them.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Like spreading their toxic, bitter, hate filled insecurities and bigotry on a hockey message board daily because they're a withered old zero?

Well, that's one way to pass the time. However, no libstain here or anyplace else should ever be critical of someone else's perceived bigotry. Do the Duke "rape" case ring a bell? I wish we could all go back and read the hysterical posts of the libstains, wanting those boys (who were framed, remember?) hanged and then executed. But they were white, and jocks, and well off for the most part, so they must have been guilty of something. Or the Aurora shooter being a member of the Tea Party? Or the edited tape which seemed to show that George Zimmerman was profiling Trayvon Martin? Bigotry and prejudice are alive and well in our political discourse. But libstains think nobody will notice when they suggest only the right is afflicted. That they are somehow above such matters. And your post just proves the point. All of that hyperbole to describe the views of someone who disagrees. Nuance. Tolerance. Respect for opposing points of view. It's all there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

No it wouldn't. Not even close. In fact, you might very well see more lawsuits.

Lawyers have typically been paid under one of two fee arrangements -- paid on an hourly basis or paid a percentage of a final recovery for their clients (contingency fee). The defendants in a lawsuit will always be paying their attorney on an hourly basis since they aren't seeking to make a recovery upon which a contingent fee is based (some clients may have a lawyer on retainer, or be paying on a "job" basis, but that's the exception and not the rule.)

The plaintiffs, usually, are paying a contingency fee. The norm is probably somewhere between 25% and 50% of any recovery, sometimes subject to court approval.

In the vast majority of lawsuits there is no "fee shifting" as you propose. This means that before a lawyer will start a lawsuit in which he or she is to receive a contingency fee, the lawyer will evaluate the potential damages available to determine whether the prospective contingency fee is worth the time and risk (of no recovery at all) associated with the case.

Right now about the only fee shifting that ever occurs is when it is either specified in a prior agreement between the parties (think, your promissory note and mortgage on your house) or where set out by statute passed by the legislature. Statutory fee shifting is common in things like employment related disputes over wages, discrimination, etc...

Let's say you have a case where you claim you suffered a broken finger as a result of a defective machine designed by John Deere. No lawyer will ever take that case. You might have a few thousand dollars in medical bills, no real permanent disability. A lawyer can't hire the necessary design engineer necessary to make such a case fly for the damages he or she might expect to recover.

But now add fee shifting to the equation. If the attorney believes that in addition to the actual damages sustained that the attorney might be able to recover from John Deere $200,000 in attorneys fees through "fee shifting", the case becomes much more attractive. The attorney is basically working on John Deere's "dime."

The reason legislatures and Congress enacted fee shifting in cases like employment discrimination is to make them attractive to plaintiff's lawyers. Otherwise no one is going to take a case where you might only recover 6 months wages as damages for someone who was making $24,000/year. A lawyer wouldn't take such a case if he or she was only going to make $3000 as a fee.

If you want to create an environment in which every minor grievance is now a basis for an actual lawsuit, then by all means enact fee shifting rules.
Sounds like a lawyerly response. Sorry, you' re not going to convince me that loser pays is going to increase the number of lawsuits. Pretty much every other western democracy uses the English Rule whereby loser pays.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Sounds like a lawyerly response. Sorry, you' re not going to convince me that loser pays is going to increase the number of lawsuits. Pretty much every other western democracy uses the English Rule whereby loser pays.

It's also my understanding that with very few obvious exceptions, criminal defendants get the first 12 jurors out of the chute. None of that jury consultant b.s.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

It's also funny how 2012 revenue levels are exactly the same (nominally) as they were in 2006, yet the expenditure amount has drastically changed. Funny how all the genius libtards on this board always forget this part.

So in one post you're *****ing about hyperinflation, and in the very next post you're using nominal dollars to show that revenue hasn't dropped? Seriously? At least try to keep your arguments consistent.

He wasn't referring to health care, but rather the justice system.

Currently, the system favours attorneys, because even if you successfully defend a lawsuit, you have lost court fees, attorney fees, and any lost wages that would otherwise be made at your job. Essentially, if I were the governor and I wanted to make money for my state, it would be in my best interest to instruct the police commissioner to pull over every single person seen, regardless of whether or not they actually committed a crime. At the same time, I would then instruct the Attorney General to always try to get a plea bargain. In addition, I would then double or triple court fees and have the money from the excess go directly to the state. If any citizen tried to sue for extortion, I would then instruct the Attorney General to filibuster as long as possible in order to coerce the citizen into dropping the case.

Until an attorney with nothing better to do comes along, fights his own case, charges $1000/hour for his own time as attorney fees, wins, and collects the biggest payout ever from the state.

But I'm sure you saw your cunning plan through.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

We should go to a "loser pays" tort system like most of the rest of the world. Cut down on lawsuit happy lawyers and frivolous lawsuits.

Just curious, what does that have to do with the federal budget? Or even the federal government in general?

This seems like a complete non-sequitor.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I like the system in Colorado. I don't know how many other states have it, but we do. A judge has the power to make the plaintiff pay the defense costs if he or she deems the lawsuit frivolous. I like this, because it allows an actual person, with some level of expertise, and who has heard the facts of the case, to decide whether a lawsuit is frivolous or not.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I like the system in Colorado. I don't know how many other states have it, but we do. A judge has the power to make the plaintiff pay the defense costs if he or she deems the lawsuit frivolous. I like this, because it allows an actual person, with some level of expertise, and who has heard the facts of the case, to decide whether a lawsuit is frivolous or not.

Subjective. But an improvement.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Obama comes out for high fuel efficiency cars. Some will think this is so bad. Afterall, think of the regulations!

But technology happens. Wireless phones, flat panel tvs, tv broadcasting to cable tv to downloadable internet choice...all start a bit more expensive and ultimately innovation is good for the customer, the producer and capitalism. And today, society isn't struggling under the weight of expensive phones. The problem is that after 100 years, auto manufacturering relative to most other technologies is ancient. The industry is the problem. Even think of the rocket, which wasn't even on the map...technology improved to where it took us to the moon...and this all over 50 years ago. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if increased independence on fuel would further reduce the need for the military needed to be 'comfortable' that we can defend our precious overseas oil interests. And allow for lower taxes all by itself.

Anyways, Obama makes a gutsy move here. In one statement, he's solidified a policy beyond what Romney has, can or will do on almost any topic. This during the GOP convention.

Obama calls for cars to get almost 55 mpg

LA Times

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced fuel economy standards Tuesday that would require car makers to almost double the average gas mileage for passenger vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

The final rules mark the latest step in a lengthy campaign by the administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption and are the highest fuel efficiency standards in U.S. history.

With an eye to the looming presidential election, the White House touted the standards as a boost for middle-class consumers. "These fuel standards represent the single most important step we've ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," President Obama said.

While automobile manufacturers welcomed the new rules, auto dealers decried them. The dealers association contends that the 2025 rules would drive up the average vehicle sticker price by $3,000. The administration says that at most, it could be as high as $1,800 and would likely be offset by $8,000 in gas savings over the lifetime of the vehicle.

The fuel economy rules would reduce the price of gasoline by about $1 per gallon, the administration estimated. They would also cut oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels a day by 2025, helping to curtail U.S. reliance on foreign oil.

Environmentalists welcomed the rules as the single biggest step any country had taken to reduce emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, which scientists say are the biggest contributor to climate change.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Obama comes out for high fuel efficiency cars. Some will think this is so bad. Afterall, think of the regulations!

But technology happens. Wireless phones, flat panel tvs, tv broadcasting to cable tv to downloadable internet choice...all start a bit more expensive and ultimately innovation is good for the customer, the producer and capitalism. And today, society isn't struggling under the weight of expensive phones. The problem is that after 100 years, auto manufacturering relative to most other technologies is ancient. The industry is the problem. Even think of the rocket, which wasn't even on the map...technology improved to where it took us to the moon...and this all over 50 years ago. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if increased independence on fuel would further reduce the need for the military needed to be 'comfortable' that we can defend our precious overseas oil interests. And allow for lower taxes all by itself.

Anyways, Obama makes a gutsy move here. In one statement, he's solidified a policy beyond what Romney has, can or will do on almost any topic. This during the GOP convention.

Obama calls for cars to get almost 55 mpg

LA Times

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced fuel economy standards Tuesday that would require car makers to almost double the average gas mileage for passenger vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

The final rules mark the latest step in a lengthy campaign by the administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption and are the highest fuel efficiency standards in U.S. history.

With an eye to the looming presidential election, the White House touted the standards as a boost for middle-class consumers. "These fuel standards represent the single most important step we've ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," President Obama said.

While automobile manufacturers welcomed the new rules, auto dealers decried them. The dealers association contends that the 2025 rules would drive up the average vehicle sticker price by $3,000. The administration says that at most, it could be as high as $1,800 and would likely be offset by $8,000 in gas savings over the lifetime of the vehicle.

The fuel economy rules would reduce the price of gasoline by about $1 per gallon, the administration estimated. They would also cut oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels a day by 2025, helping to curtail U.S. reliance on foreign oil.

Environmentalists welcomed the rules as the single biggest step any country had taken to reduce emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, which scientists say are the biggest contributor to climate change.

Put me down for $100 to get His Greatesteverness' face carved on Mt. Rushmore.
Just one question, do you drink the pre-mixed Kool aiid? How that guy can talk about "reducing our dependence on foreign oil" while doing everything possible to impede drilling for our own, huge, reserves is political hackery of the worst sort.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Put me down for $100 to get His Greatesteverness' face carved on Mt. Rushmore.
Just one question, do you drink the pre-mixed Kool aiid? How that guy can talk about "reducing our dependence on foreign oil" while doing everything possible to impede drilling for our own, huge, reserves is political hackery of the worst sort.
So OP i'm getting that the environmental concerns are not that big a deal to you.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Sounds like a lawyerly response. Sorry, you' re not going to convince me that loser pays is going to increase the number of lawsuits. Pretty much every other western democracy uses the English Rule whereby loser pays.
I'm not trying to convince you that you'd see more lawsuits. I don't know that you would. That's why I used the word "might."

My point was that there are too many variables that go into a person deciding whether to pursue a claim in the court system to simply conclude that adoption of the English Rule here in the U.S. would automatically decrease the number of lawsuits. I'm going to bet that with just a little searching a person could come up with any number of economic/legal studies that show it would be pretty hard to predict the effect. Which, imho, is why you don't see any sort of real, concerted effort to get it passed like we did with caps on lawsuit awards and other "tort reform".
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

So in one post you're *****ing about hyperinflation, and in the very next post you're using nominal dollars to show that revenue hasn't dropped? Seriously? At least try to keep your arguments consistent.

When did I say anything about hyperinflation? I said we were in a period of stagflation, and that does NOT include hyperinflation, unlike what your libstain media has told you.

Until an attorney with nothing better to do comes along, fights his own case, charges $1000/hour for his own time as attorney fees, wins, and collects the biggest payout ever from the state.

But I'm sure you saw your cunning plan through.

Like I said, there's a loophole in every plan. Plus, I'm sure the government would be smart enough to know when there is an attorney and "give up". They have the IRS at their disposal, after all.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

How that guy can talk about "reducing our dependence on foreign oil" while doing everything possible to impede drilling for our own, huge, reserves is political hackery of the worst sort.

As has been discussed many times, oil is a global market. If we do drill more, the relatively small amount of extra drilled will be thrown into the global market (as oil companies absolutely will chase overseas contracts if they're worth more profit). The result is virtually no relief as Asia guzzles everything in sight. On the flip side if we as a country just consume less...it has meaningful reduction on the need for overseas oil, while reducing the financial drag on the economy. I wouldn't underestimate the doubling of fuel efficiency for autos on the impact on our consumption. The environment is gravy.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

As has been discussed many times, oil is a global market. If we do drill more, the relatively small amount of extra drilled will be thrown into the global market (as oil companies absolutely will chase overseas contracts if they're worth more profit). The result is virtually no relief as Asia guzzles everything in sight. On the flip side if we as a country just consume less...it has meaningful reduction on the need for overseas oil, while reducing the financial drag on the economy. I wouldn't underestimate the doubling of fuel efficiency for autos on the impact on our consumption. The environment is gravy.

Then use paper bags at the groc- oh, wait, you environmentalists cut that as well because of trees. The libstain environmentalists practically destroyed Ticonderoga, and now the area is complaining to high heck about people leaving. Environmentalists are a group that should be ignored because they ***** and whine about everything, and are the nemesis to any country.
 
Back
Top