Actually, he seems to be, well, what he more or less always was: A hypocrite and an idiot:
Judge Bork has been a leading advocate of restricting plaintiffs' ability to recover through tort law. In a 2002 article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy--the official journal of the Federalist Society--Bork argued that frivolous claims and excessive punitive damage awards have caused the Constitution to evolve into a document which would allow Congress to enact tort reforms that would have been unconstitutional at the framing:Link.
State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress's power, may now be constitutionally appropriate.
Bork's quote just makes no sense.
Tort reform is needed because the system of law as a civilized means of recourse has encouraged pressure for a federal solution to state laws? The only way to that is for federal law to pre-empt a lot of state laws, the laws (I think) he's complaining about.
Including an old guy falling down a short flight of stairs.
Well once a dishonest, unprincipled scumbag, always a dishonest, unprincipled scumbag....
No comments:
Post a Comment