Talk:Tort reform in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Add new subjects to the bottom of the talk page.

Previous discussions:


Contents

[edit] Ideology

I don't want to argue whether the ideology of tort reform is "right" or not, I'm just trying to establish whether or not the tort refom movement has one, and whether its commonly acknowledged enough to insert a few lines about it. Just to reiterate, the quote I offered was from The Common Weal (a liberal think-tank) and was part of an anti-tort reform article. Here it is again...

...from section| The Ideology of Tort Reform
But a number of tort reform arguments rest upon a broader, underlying ideological foundation, one built around the ideas of personal responsibility, free markets, deregulation of business, and privatization of government functions. For example, the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility are evoked in tort reform arguments regarding the dangers of cigarette smoking and fast food. The free enterprise theme is frequently evoked in arguments for limiting punitive damages, because of the potential harm to a company or a whole industry. By promoting an anti-government, pro-corporate philosophy that encompasses many issues, the Right has laid the ideological groundwork for public acceptance of these tort reform arguments. The problem is that the right's ideologues have warped the values they claim to espouse, and the danger is that they have taken them to extremes.

They go on to cite an article by Joesph Kellard in Capitalism Magazine that links "social responsibility" presumed by the anti-tobacco crusade (and underwritten by its litigation) to statism and withering away of individualism. They obviously disagree with his findings, but they concede that these perceptions and ideology are at least partly responsible for the popular rise of "tort reform" as a policy issue. All I'm saying is that if an anti-tort reform think-tank can quote Kellard, paraphrase the ideological framework he suggests and attribute it broadly to the tort reform "movement", than why can't we?

Again, I'm refraining from any argument about tort reform in these pages. I'm just going to focus on writing a clear, concise article that describes it accurately. I'd offer the "list" I've been defending as my evidence. There are two reforms in that list that I'm morally and intellectually opposed to, and that I would vote against if given a referendum. Can anyone guess which two? I hope not.--HelloDali 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was tired when I wrote what I said, as I stated. Yes, I agree we should not debate tort reform here; I probably should not have. I am continually astounded at the idea of privatizing government functions, then taking away the public's right to redress harm. But that's enough. It sounds like you are suggesting that the article be revamped. I don't disagree, since it is still badly organized. A bit of history would be good, but we also need to keep in mind this is not a book.
You already told me both 'reforms' you find objectionable. I agree. And yes, we need to have an article that describes what it is, and what the objections to it are - concisely, without a long drawn out argument 'pro' and 'con' that turns into a tirade. That was my biggest objection to the article as it was. And, if anyone can make the article better written and tighter, I think you can. Go ahead and make some changes and we can discuss. jgwlaw 01:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I did? Wow, I must have been tired too. I'll try my rewrite a bit later tonight or tommorrow morning, then you can edit or revert based on feedback.--HelloDali 20:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, you did. Go for it..jgwlaw 23:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the silly jokes

Don't put that silly joke into the article.

Tort Reform does not mean 'cheaper pastries'.

Thank you.

72.82.208.200 07:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Section of Tort Reform

All the issues in the political segment of are directly related, they deserve to be grouped under one section. I did not change any of the paragraph content, but I did change some bold headings. Vinnievesh 11:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some issues with this article

These are issues I see in the article. Unless there are objections, I plan to correct these things:

  • It's not clear to me that gun immunity is a particularly good example. Reformers seem to argue for broad changes more vigorously than those targeted to specific industries. Unless an explanation is given, I think we should use something like damage caps as an example.
  • Why on earth are we citing a wiki (SourceWatch) without even specifying a specific version? This is sloppy, and it's precisely what we tell outside organizations to avoid when citing wikipedia. Although we often use political blogs to characterize avowedly partisan arguments, I think we can do better than this source.
  • In the Ford Pinto case, the company did take into account the value of human life—they used a monetary value, however. Their economic analysis is actually why they were criticized. Discussion of the case needs substantial revision.
  • The Center for a Just Society does indeed oppose some tort reforms, but not all. They've got a surprisingly thorough four-part series on the subject. The only reference I could find to the RU-486 argument is from the chairman here; it's not on their site. I'd prefer to cite him if no other source is available.
  • The "predicted ideological stereotypes" of Supreme Court justices discussion: we should include this section, but it's not so surprising that Scalia—perennial foe of constitutional substantive due process—would be in the minority.
  • Discussion of the "players" seems enormously POV. The article documents corporate interests on the pro-reform side in excruciating detail, but doesn't do likewise for the anti-reform groups. Instead, the article describes AAJ in its own favored terms: "to promote a fair and effective justice system ..."
  • Similarly, there are law professor on all sides of the debate.

Cool Hand Luke 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands is a complete one-sided disaster. It probably needs to be rewritten from scratch. I've taken an older version and started playing with it in my sandbox here. The entire Commonweal Institute screed should be cut to no more than a sentence under WP:Undue weight. (I'd complain also that it's wildly inaccurate and misleading, but I understand that factual accuracy doesn't matter under WP:A.) -- THF 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It probably should be trimmed as undue weight. If not, and if you still perceive misrepresentation, you can cite reliable sources that question their conclusions. If none exist, synthesizing your own counterarguments would be original research, but it seems you understand that. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/r/Talk%7ETort_reform_in_the_United_States_1417.html"