A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Plus, what exactly is the state's beef going to be for class-actions? That they don't get justice, or that they don't get to do the justice the way they want even though it affects people, corportate entities and tax-receiving bodies in numerous other jurisdictions? Huh? Witch, Ty, witch?

I don't know enough about the bill, 'cuz I haven't been paying attention, but it will permit removal of cases that are now in state court to federal court. Do you not see the states-right problem there? Is that how superficial the conservative commitment to states rights was?

As for this bit about affecting people in other jurisdiction, a state court can't take a case right now unless it has jurisdiction over the parties. And it can't adjudicate a class action involving parties elsewhere unless it meets various standards relating to things like the state's interest.

And you talk about "affecting people" in other jurisdictions as if it's a bad thing. Suppose I live in California, and I buy insurance from a company in Virginia, and they defraud me. Shouldn't I get to sue them in California?

Now suppose I live in California, and I buy stock in a Virgina company, which fudges its books and goes bankrupt. It turns out that the auditors knew this was happening, and said nothing, and under Virginia law they have a duty to stockholders like me to prepare the books properly. Don't we want Virginia courts to be able to "affect" me by protecting my rights?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know enough about the bill, 'cuz I haven't been paying attention, but it will permit removal of cases that are now in state court to federal court. Do you not see the states-right problem there? Is that how superficial the conservative commitment to states rights was?

As for this bit about affecting people in other jurisdiction, a state court can't take a case right now unless it has jurisdiction over the parties. And it can't adjudicate a class action involving parties elsewhere unless it meets various standards relating to things like the state's interest.

And you talk about "affecting people" in other jurisdictions as if it's a bad thing. Suppose I live in California, and I buy insurance from a company in Virginia, and they defraud me. Shouldn't I get to sue them in California?

Now suppose I live in California, and I buy stock in a Virgina company, which fudges its books and goes bankrupt. It turns out that the auditors knew this was happening, and said nothing, and under Virginia law they have a duty to stockholders like me to prepare the books properly. Don't we want Virginia courts to be able to "affect" me by protecting my rights?

I think the new law is something like if less than a third of the plaintiffs are state residents AND they are claiming more than $5MM in damages, it goes to federal court. This seems reasonable to me, though I'm not prepared to debate its constitutionality. I think the more interesting issue is the one that limits attys fees when the recovery is discount, coupons for future purchases, and the like. We all know that was being abused by our brethren on the plaintiffs side. However, I think some defendants will in the future wish that the option of discounts and coupons were still available to them to settle cases.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was impressed with Democracy for America's efforts in the Richard Morrison campaign down here. I also like Dean's approach with regard to trying to put a good candidate in every race in the country, not just the ones we think we can win. One of the major problems down here is that we just don't field good candidates, so the GOP often wins by default. And I hated Terry McAulffie.

If he can fill seats with his public profile, that is a very good thing. I think turning Texas is a long term project that the Dems ought to be committing serious resources to.

People can hate the DNC chair, that's OK. As long as he does his job. McAuliffe did a great job on financing; he was not as good at the other parts of the job.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think the new law is something like if less than a third of the plaintiffs are state residents AND they are claiming more than $5MM in damages, it goes to federal court. This seems reasonable to me, though I'm not prepared to debate its constitutionality.

I'm not debating its constitutionality at all -- I suspect that the Commerce Clause lets Congress do whatever the hell it likes here. I'm merely pointing out that the folks who are doing this are trampling on states' rights. Personally, I think you get a better caliber of judge in federal court.

I think the more interesting issue is the one that limits attys fees when the recovery is discount, coupons for future purchases, and the like. We all know that was being abused by our brethren on the plaintiffs side. However, I think some defendants will in the future wish that the option of discounts and coupons were still available to them to settle cases.

We all know that was being abused by our brethren on both sides. If you can't just buy off the plaintiffs' attorneys, surely some cases won't be filed, but surely others will be litigated such that they actually draw blood.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We all know that was being abused by our brethren on both sides. If you can't just buy off the plaintiffs' attorneys, surely some cases won't be filed, but surely others will be litigated such that they actually draw blood.

I've actually getting some zeroes in checks as a Plaintiff the last few years which shocks me.

Of course there were the airline coupons which were useless- then I got a check for $1.50 (honest) from my car lease. But then a $1000 check from an old government job class action- and now- knock wood- an expected $3000 Canadian times four coming soon. Those two were much more limited classes that the typical class action poster child case.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not debating its constitutionality at all -- I suspect that the Commerce Clause lets Congress do whatever the hell it likes here. I'm merely pointing out that the folks who are doing this are trampling on states' rights. Personally, I think you get a better caliber of judge in federal court.

I don't see it as much of a states vs. feds thing so much as states vs. other states. With SS about to go and now this, I wonder how Alabama will get its money.

We all know that was being abused by our brethren on both sides. If you can't just buy off the plaintiffs' attorneys, surely some cases won't be filed, but surely others will be litigated such that they actually draw blood.

I'm looking forward to this. Should be fun.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and thank you for bringing some normallacy back to this board.

100 posts about "How I would build a tax structure if I was starting a country?" Guess what? We ain't getting rid of income tax and we ain't changing it in any meaningful way anytime soon. GGG says it's a politics board Hank- we talk about stuff like that- Bullshit. You should talk about stuff that could or is happening. You want to re-design the revenue stream go to nationstates.net and build your own country.

what you guys did the past few days is equal to me and SS arguing about whether it would be right for the US to claim Saturn for the supposed Uranium deposits- it is only "politics" in the "I'm a geek" sense. Sorry.

And thank you to the Twin sock for removing my Avatar- and from "online at the same time" observations yesterday the Sock is either GGG or Sidd- it doesn't seem like Sidd though- so it is either GGG or some lurker.

That is all.

You can't possibly be serious with this post, Mr. "Picasso painted Guernica but the story he told about it at dinner parties couldn't possibly have evolved without divine intervention."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You can't possibly be serious with this post, Mr. "Picasso painted Guernica but the story he told about it at dinner parties couldn't possibly have evolved without divine intervention."

Everyone agreed I was right with that post Wonk. Move On.com, or start a separate thread or go to Jennifer Government.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Everyone agreed I was right with that post Wonk. Move On.com, or start a separate thread or go to Jennifer Government.

I wasn't objecting to the content; merely the audacity of the time-waster posting it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I wasn't objecting to the content; merely the audacity of the time-waster posting it.

I stand by the Guernica posts-

The "question science" posts have very important merit here. You guys all accept anything said by a scientist as gospel- from global warming to whatever. My goal was to take something that couldn't be argued and show you that even there you simply accept things because a scientist said it- I certainly didn't expect for Adder to give me the "money quote" he did, but your side's greatest weakness here is that you let numbskulls argue your side, and they blow the arguments.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here, from Slate, is a piece about Social Security reform by Steven Landsburg, a Rochestor economics professor who is more conservative than many. Most of the piece is devoted to explaining that much of the Social Security debate is besides the point because old people in the future will always be able to demand benefits. (I don't think this is true, for reasons that Burger can guess at, but whatever -- assume it's true.) Says, Landsburg, the important question now is whether we can ensure that we're better off in the future by saving more now.

• In other words: If you want to address the Social Security crisis of the future, you must adopt laws that encourage saving in the present. There's nothing else you can do.

OK. But then here's the part I don't get, the rest of the piece (in its entirety):

• Which brings us to the president's proposal for private accounts. I like that proposal for three reasons. First, it will encourage people to save. Second, it will give people choices, and choices are good. And third, it will give more voters a stake in the capitalist system, making them more likely to vote for the sort of pro-growth policies that will improve the quality of life for us in our old age and our grandchildren.
  
  What really matters, though, is not private accounts. It's the saving and pro-growth policies that private accounts will encourage. If we can get the same things in other ways, that's just as good.

But what the president proposes won't "encourage people to save." He's talking about borrowing huge sums of money to set up private accounts. This is not saving more -- it's opening a credit line to move money into a savings account, and fooling yourself into thinking you've made yourself better off.

What am I missing?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I stand by the Guernica posts-

The "question science" posts have very important merit here. You guys all accept anything said by a scientist as gospel- from global warming to whatever. My goal was to take something that couldn't be argued and show you that even there you simply accept things because a scientist said it- I certainly didn't expect for Adder to give me the "money quote" he did, but your side's greatest weakness here is that you let numbskulls argue your side, and they blow the arguments.

You guys?" Sexist fuck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The "question science" posts . . .

You don't "question science". You question assertions made by individuals who purport to have followed the scientific method, but have actually followed an ideology, or profitability, or . . . idiocy. The ultimate proof, or not, of your origin assertions will be made through science. The ultimate idiocy and ideology of "global warming" will be shown through science. Science is a process, not a result.

Sorry. Sore spot.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think the more interesting issue is the one that limits attys fees when the recovery is discount, coupons for future purchases, and the like. We all know that was being abused by our brethren on the plaintiffs side. However, I think some defendants will in the future wish that the option of discounts and coupons were still available to them to settle cases.

Every defense lawyer and corporation loves to yell and scream about coupon settlements.... until they get the chance to use one.

They are a horrible abuse. Judges should have been rejecting them wholesale a long time ago.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But what the president proposes won't "encourage people to save." He's talking about borrowing huge sums of money to set up private accounts. This is not saving more -- it's opening a credit line to move money into a savings account, and fooling yourself into thinking you've made yourself better off.

What am I missing?

Nothing that I can see. I see no encouragement to save in this proposal. In fact, to the extent that it allows people to fool themselves by thinking "look, I have this SS account - I'm saving!", I think it hurts.

And, he's right that the old will always have the power to demand more, and to demand rescue when their accounts trash, and to demand higher payouts, and lower setoffs . . . . There's going to be political clout in that demographic for decades.

And, "choices"? Individual investors who can't spend tons of time on research, or who don't have the skills to do research, don't do well picking investments. So, practically speaking, we'll end up with ten or so government-approved boring, safe, low-return investment vehicles. Why not just go back to the lockbox approach, and save all the mess of setting up a new system?