[typoon]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113836,00.html

The "Cheeseburger Bill" — officially called the_Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (search)_— faces obstacles in the Senate. If it_becomes law, it_would prevent what it describes as "frivolous lawsuits against the manufacturers, distributors or sellers of food or nonalcoholic beverage products" arising from obesity claims.

Finally something is being done about these frivolous lawsuits. I wish congress didn't have do even do something like this. I mean WTF ever happened to Personal responsiblity?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by typoon:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113836,00.html

The "Cheeseburger Bill" — officially called the_Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (search)_— faces obstacles in the Senate. If it_becomes law, it_would prevent what it describes as "frivolous lawsuits against the manufacturers, distributors or sellers of food or nonalcoholic beverage products" arising from obesity claims.

Finally something is being done about these frivolous lawsuits. I wish congress didn't have do even do something like this. I mean WTF ever happened to Personal responsiblity?

I agree frivolous lawsuits are a problem in general. However, I don't think the motivation here is all that altruistic. Its simply rich lobbyists calling in a favor from their pocket politicians.

I mean, if frivolous lawsuits were the motivation, they'd be going after conservative talk show hosts who try to sue Al Franken.

[benb]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I agree frivolous lawsuits are a problem in general. However, I don't think the motivation here is all that altruistic. Its simply rich lobbyists calling in a favor from their pocket politicians.

Have you ever seen the glass half-full with regards to anything not done by the DNC or its members?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by benb:
Have you ever seen the glass half-full with regards to anything not done by the DNC or its members?

non sequitor

[vmpaul]

How big a problem is this? We've all heard of the some really stupid lawsuits but is this overwhelming the judicial system? If they are so ridiculous why wouldn't making 'loser pays' the standard then? Surely that would cut down n most of them.

I'm just questioning the priorities of the current Congress - the 'Cheeseburger Bill, FCC investigations into the JJ incident, hearings on steroids in baseball? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?

[benb]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
non sequitor

cop out?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I mean, if frivolous lawsuits were the motivation, they'd be going after conservative talk show hosts who try to sue Al Franken.

LOL. O'Reilly: "It wasn't frivolous but I had nothing to do with it . . . "

I like O'Reilly but he's almost as big a hypocrite as Rush.

[andi*pandi]

It's a shame we have to legislate common sense. I'd be all behind a "loser pays" system for these type of lawsuits, rather than just banning them. And I would have rathered they do this for ALL frivilous lawsuits, not just obesity claims. That way, they'd avoid the appearance of only doing this to appease "big cheeseburger" money.

I hope this doesn't cover other lawsuits one could aim at McDonalds though.

[typoon]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
It's a shame we have to legislate common sense. I'd be all behind a "loser pays" system for these type of lawsuits, rather than just banning them. And I would have rathered they do this for ALL frivilous lawsuits, not just obesity claims. That way, they'd avoid the appearance of only doing this to appease "big cheeseburger" money.

I hope this doesn't cover other lawsuits one could aim at McDonalds though.

I agree I wish they had done this with all the other frivolous lawsuits as well.

[Spliffdaddy]

Big tobacco lawsuits opened the door to filing lawsuits against everything that is bad for you.

Ain't like we didn't see this coming.

I mean, it's only fair, right? Big business selling us stuff that's unhealthy.

[andi*pandi]

difference I see in this is that Big Tobacco used to advertise smoking as healthy and refreshing, which is misleading. McDonalds never said a Big Mac was healthy. Granted those smoking ads were 50 years ago--why I didn't think anyone who started smoking 10 years ago should have benefited from that lawsuit.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I agree frivolous lawsuits are a problem in general. However, I don't think the motivation here is all that altruistic. Its simply rich lobbyists calling in a favor from their pocket politicians.

I mean, if frivolous lawsuits were the motivation, they'd be going after conservative talk show hosts who try to sue Al Franken.

Just because I'm curious:

Can you tell me if that suit was ever filed, or just verbally threatened? Did O'Reilly send a letter himself, or did he have a lawyer letter sent?


On-Topic:

Everyone is sure that frivolous lawsuits are an epidemic problem, except me.

The court exists in part as a means for citizens to seek reparation for damages caused by other parties. Sometimes those parties are corporations. It differs from state to state, but there is a high standard of evidence that has to be met, with oftentimes a short statute of limitations.

How high should the burden placed on the plaintiff just to get to a hearing?

There must be balance, and I think we're not so far from where that balance should lie.

People must be able to seek damages. People must have the court accessible to them. The court won't hear a frivolous lawsuit, and lawyers should be penalized for bringing them, but definitely don't make the standard so high that it prevents people from attempts at being made whole.

[tie]

Personally, I don't think companies or their executives should be held responsible for anything they do. For once I agree with Spliffdaddy. :)

It's ironic but typical that they put "personal responsibility" in the name of a bill written to remove corporate responsibility. I believe in both personal and corporate responsibility. If McDonalds didn't do anything wrong -- which they probably didn't, from what little I know -- then they'll do fine.

I'm surprised that some conservatives consider banning assault weapons as part of a slippery slope, ditto for allowing gay marriages -- but don't see giving corporations legal immunity as part of a slippery slope.

[daimoni]

.

[vmarks]

I'd like bills to require a single focus, and to require an explanation of where the funding is coming from.

I think if it were phrased properly and implemented properly, it could go a long ways towards eliminating pork and the underhanded sneaking in of unrelated amendments to bills.