Class Action Hero
Senate is set to vote on a bill that will make it easier for Federal Courts to take class action cases based on the diversity requirement. This is part of the tort reform that the Pres has been calling for, which of course is euphemism for reducing ability to sue and award of damages. What really caught my eye were the remaks by Sen. John Thune (R. SD), "Our tort system is broken. And without the necessary reforms beginning with class action lawsuits, we deny our nation not only fair and efficient access to justice, but we allow this problem to pull our economy downward."
Huh? Fair and efficient? Am I missing something here?
Huh? Fair and efficient? Am I missing something here?
Labels: Grammar Snarks
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 10:08 AM
6 Comments:
Holy shit, blogger changed the comment thing. Kick ass...I think.
Anyway, thanks D...I just wanted to make sure I wasn't nuts for thinking that fairness is not that easy to determine.
Mr. Online,
I don't find your linked articles very convincing. You might take a look at this one:
http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2004/12/the_ignorance_o.html
Are you serious?
The definition of "gimmick" you chose to post is the one that depends on the word being defined? I guess I'll have to go look it up myself.
Here's one from dictionary.com:
1.
1. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.
2. An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance; a gadget.
2.
1. An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
2. A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.
3. A small object whose name does not come readily to mind.
So here's what I want to know: Is the fairness talk intentionally misleading or dishonest? Is it primarily about promoting a product rather than making a claim? Does it obscure or misrepresent the issue? In what sense is it supposed to be a gimmick? What is the argument about?
Sweet Jebus...quoting dictionary.com? This is quite simple. Thume, "without the necessary reforms...we deny our nation...fair and efficient access to justice."
This is outright false. And no, falsehood does not depend on my definition of fair, efficient, justice, and/or access. It's false.
I don't see what's wrong with quoting dictionary.com - I just want to know what the argument is about so I can tell whether american on line is a genius or a dolt, or something in between.
american on line: I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to argue. Is it that any time politicians call something fair it's a gimmick? Are you saying that calling this particular bill fair must be a gimmick?
I still want you to explain what you mean by "gimmick". Are you saying that Thune's position is so weak that he must not believe what he says?
I'm not going to say your argument is sloppy because I haven't figured out what you're saying. I also can't figure out what you think of Thune's position. I don't think that means you are sloppy. You can't make a clear argument without saying anything about the other side, however.
Personally, I am against both this bill and Bush's "Clear Skies", but this one seems like it's a closer case to me. Clear Skies also seems more like a lie, or at least a half truth. I'm not sure what you think, but I think there are good points that Thune could have made in favor of the bill. I just think it's not enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home