It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Senate OKs Limit on Class Action Lawsuits
Friday February 11, 2005 7:31 AM
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress is only days away from handing President Bush and business groups a big victory by curbing multimillion-dollar class action lawsuits.
Despite complaints the legislation could hurt consumers, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill 72-26 on Thursday. The House will take it up next week and send it to the president to sign into law.
Opponents say the president and his allies on this issue are trying to help businesses escape proper judgments for their wrongdoing, and are going after the trial lawyers...
``But this bill is not about punishing bad lawyers. It is about hurting consumers and helping corporations avoid liability for misconduct.''
Under a deal between the two GOP-controlled chambers, if the Senate passed the bill without any changes, the House would follow suit and send it to the White House.
Eight Democrats were sponsors of the bill, leaving the rest with no way to block it.
We have been told that Bush and his administration will not be held accountable for their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan
Originally posted by utrex
The election was our chance to hold them responsible, but the majority of voters chose not to.
So government only needs to be held accountable during election seasons? If something was done that was criminal, then accountability should be done at any point during a term.
Originally posted by sigung86
I wonder about the validity of most of these large class action law suits. For instance, my daughter got a check for two or three dollars, US, for being on the winning side of one of those suits. Funny thing is that she hadn't ever signed up for it. Further consideration said that if it was a multi-million dollar suit and everyone of the "litigants" received two dollars, then who got the vast majority of the money?
Washington - The Bush administration is aggressively wielding a rarely used executive power known as the state secrets privilege in an attempt to squash hard-hitting court challenges to its anti-terrorism campaign.
How the White House is using this privilege, not a law but a series of legal precedents built on national security, disturbs some civil libertarians and open-government advocates because of its sweeping power. Judges almost never challenge the government's assertion of the privilege, and it can be fatal to a plaintiff's case.
The government is invoking the privilege in an attempt to wipe out the heart of a lawsuit that seeks to examine rendition, the secretive and controversial practice of sending terror suspects to foreign countries where they might be tortured.
Dear Majority Leader Frist:
During President Bush's first four years in office, the Senate confirmed 204 judicial nominees and withheld its consent to only 10 nominations, a confirmation rate of over 95%. Last year the federal court vacancy rate reached its lowest level in 15 years. Nonetheless, in recent press reports you have threatened to use extraordinary parliamentary tactics allowing the Republican majority to rubberstamp the handful of nominees already rejected and all future Bush nominees.