| #1 | |
|
|
Laws limiting lawsuits aren't allowed by the USC - ?
Laws limiting lawsuits are not a Constitutionally-granted power of Congress, are
they? Republicans sure do like them. Really now, who has the right to control civil law? Is it almost a power unto itself? Should this be? |
| #2 | |
|
|
Re: Laws limiting lawsuits aren't allowed by the USC - ?
"Neil" <paradoxer@lykose.com> wrote in
news:10df31ujs66u8d7@corp.supernews.com: > Laws limiting lawsuits are not a Constitutionally-granted power of > Congress, are they? Republicans sure do like them. Really now, who has > the right to control civil law? Is it almost a power unto itself? Should > this be? > > Think the Supreme Court backing HMO's against injured patients will put a dent in the right wing rant about the "liberal" Supreme Court? Don't count on it............. |
| #3 | |
|
|
Re: Laws limiting lawsuits aren't allowed by the USC - ?
In article <10df31ujs66u8d7@corp.supernews.com>,
"Neil" <paradoxer@lykose.com> wrote: > Laws limiting lawsuits are not a Constitutionally-granted power of Congress, > are > they? Republicans sure do like them. Really now, who has the right to control > civil law? Is it almost a power unto itself? Should this be? Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to set up tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. This would presumably also include the scope of these courts (both civil and criminal). Since HMOs have considerable interstate business, these courts would have jurisdiction--to the exclusion of state courts should Congress mandate it. -- Leader of the Slithy Toves |
| #4 | |
|
|
Re: Laws limiting lawsuits aren't allowed by the USC - ?
"Lord Jubjub" <jubjub@ev1.net> wrote in message news:jubjub-DDB191.11302522062004@corp.supernews.com... > In article <10df31ujs66u8d7@corp.supernews.com>, > "Neil" <paradoxer@lykose.com> wrote: > > > Laws limiting lawsuits are not a Constitutionally-granted power of Congress, > > are > > they? Republicans sure do like them. Really now, who has the right to control > > civil law? Is it almost a power unto itself? Should this be? > > Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to set up tribunals > inferior to the Supreme Court. This would presumably also include the > scope of these courts (both civil and criminal). Since HMOs have > considerable interstate business, these courts would have > jurisdiction--to the exclusion of state courts should Congress mandate > it. > > -- > Leader of the Slithy Toves Interesting, but what about the general question, like a law Congress passes saying, "No suits against X business" etc. Doesn't it matter whether the suit is in or out of state? |
| #5 | |
|
|
Re: Laws limiting lawsuits aren't allowed by the USC - ?
Y'know, I'd prefer saying "Torts and regulatory oversight are mutually exclusive".. if your industry has a regulatory body like FDA, FDIC, SEC, then no lawsuits.. go to the agency as a "first venue".. I mean, if you have regulation, then your biz judgement is clouded.. If you have a labor suit, you're supposed to go to NLRB first, right? In unregulated industry, then torts would be allowed.. also, if you want to upset the "deep pockets" concept, do things like going after the AmerIndian casinos since their ancestors invented (bred) tobacco, or go after the fire unions since they forced us to use asbestos.. that Buick decision in the 1930s was what first upset the tort system - then the 1960s geopagan varmint-mentals and Mr Raluf al-ibn-Nader and his PIRG terrorists.. - = - Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm ---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}--- [Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards] [Health Reform means abolishing FDR's insurance tax exemption] [To stop SPAM, Charge net-postage] [Abolish 16th (Inc Tx) Amendment] |
| #6 | |
|
|
Re: Laws limiting lawsuits aren't allowed by the USC - ?
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:18:06 -0400, "Neil" <paradoxer@lykose.com>
wrote: > >"Lord Jubjub" <jubjub@ev1.net> wrote in message >news:jubjub-DDB191.11302522062004@corp.supernews.com... >> In article <10df31ujs66u8d7@corp.supernews.com>, >> "Neil" <paradoxer@lykose.com> wrote: >> >> > Laws limiting lawsuits are not a Constitutionally-granted power of Congress, >> > are >> > they? Republicans sure do like them. Really now, who has the right to >control >> > civil law? Is it almost a power unto itself? Should this be? >> >> Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to set up tribunals >> inferior to the Supreme Court. This would presumably also include the >> scope of these courts (both civil and criminal). Since HMOs have >> considerable interstate business, these courts would have >> jurisdiction--to the exclusion of state courts should Congress mandate >> it. >> >> -- >> Leader of the Slithy Toves > >Interesting, but what about the general question, like a law Congress passes >saying, "No suits against X business" etc. Doesn't it matter whether the suit is >in or out of state? The recent case pertained to Texas law. ERISA preempts state laws in this area. The Feds grabbed the right to regulate such stuff, based presumably on the Interstate Commerce Clause. Employees are part of commerce. THeir benefits, such as health benefits, are related to commerce. It's often interstate. So ERISA regulates interstate commerce. That's the theory. |
