Bill would ban fast-food suits

[truthpusher]

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/01/30/local/doc41f9895a97e29323330171.txt

Bill would ban fast-food suits
BY NANCY HICKS / Lincoln Journal Star

Sen. Jeanne Combs wants a stop sign at the Nebraska border: Fat folks can't suit sue others for their own bad habits in this state. Her Commonsense Consumption Act (LB455) would restrict civil lawsuits stemming from weight gain or obesity.

(snip)

Using skinny kids on restaurant commercials is not the problem. Eating too much of the wrong kind of food is what makes people gain weight, she said. And that is a personal responsibility, said Combs, who lost 150 pounds with gastric bypass surgery, good eating habits and exercise.

During a public hearing Thursday before the Legislature's Judiciary Committee, the bill received support from the Nebraska Restaurant Association, which represents about 4,000 restaurants, the Nebraska Grocery Industry Association and the Nebraska Retail Federation. Representatives of these groups stressed the "personal responsibility" theme.

(snip)

"Obesity is a matter of personal responsibility," Combs said. "We are not victims."

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/01/30/local/doc41f9895a97e29323330171.txt

[Sandpiper]

1. In exchange

Fast food chains should be forced to reveal the caloric value of the food they're advertising on their commercials.

In order to help consumers make "responsible" choices.

[Rush1184]

21. exactly

[Heyo]

23. That is already required...

... you just have to ask for it.

Heyo

[d.l.Green]

29. What requires it? Let's go back to "Supersize Me", even

the highly organized McDonald's rarely had nutritional info available even when asking...

It is more about personal responsibility BUT the information needs to be more readily available. With all the web saavy people here on DU- you all have no excuse for not researching what is the right course to take for a healthy life. But the millions who voted for * do have an excuse- idiocy...

[AP]

2. If these suits are meritless, why do they need a law to protect them from

suits?

Sounds like the think that these suits might actually survive motions to dismiss.

[Sandpiper]

3. Delete

[Sandpiper]

4. Indeed

The court systems already have methods to reject meritless claims and sanction parties for bringing frivolous litigation.

Unless they were afraid, they wouldn't be asking for extra protection.

[Solon]

5. That's one thing I never understood about tort reform...

Judges, not legislators, should do their jobs to figure out the merits of cases, ITS THEIR FREAKING JOB to do so. Using the legislator in a case like this is like using a broadsword to remove a burst appendix, something bad will happen.

[truthpusher]

7. Tort Reform = Corporate Bullet-Proofing n/t

[Psephos]

8. The fast-food companies don't fear judges, they fear juries

Juries have a tendency to make awards based on emotions and the Robin Hood principle, rather than points of law.

The tobacco companies were considered suit-proof once upon a time.

[Solon]

9. True, but Judges routinely reduce such jury decisions to a...

more reasonable level. In other words, tort reform is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

[Psephos]

10. Yes, but the public thinks about that woman who spilled her hot coffee

Perception versus reality.

[Solon]

13. I don't really care about perception, I just worry about reality...

tell people the facts, and they should reach their own conclusions. Repubs and some DINOs love to make a mountain out of a molehill, I say kick the mountain out from under them, bring them down the level of reality.

[Sandpiper]

14. It's judges not juries who decide if a case can go forward

Based on the merits.

If a suit is non meritorious, a jury will never have the opportunity to hear it.

If it's frivolous, the judge can impose sanctions on the party bringing the suit.

[w4rma]

24. I'm sorry but jury trials are *required* by the Constitution for a very

very good reason. And you've inadverantly hit upon it. Those "points of law" can be written to oppress rather than protect Americans. Jury trials force a confrontation with those oppressive laws written to protect the powerful from the rest of us.

[Psephos]

30. They didn't seem to protect the powerful tobacco companies

Hey, I'm arguing the same side of the fence as you. :-) As you point out, jury trials are provided for in the Constitution.

I didn't hit on this inadvertantly; it was "advertant." (Is that a word?) Juries serve as a needed balance against the abstractions and corruptions of law. However, as a matter of principle I would prefer to see our legal system depend more upon laws than upon men, as the phrase goes. There is, after all, nothing to prevent the corruption of juries, either.

[ZR2]

28. However, you still have to spend money

on a lawyer in order to file for a dismissal.

[sally343434]

6. Hypocrisy

> And that is a personal responsibility, said Combs, who lost
> 150 pounds with gastric bypass surgery, good eating habits and
> exercise

Sorry, Combs. It's the gastric bypass that got your weight off. If you were really employing "good eating habits and exercise," you wouldn't have needed the surgery.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wellstone dem]

16. I didn't know that

thanks for telling me, and the woman who had the wrong breast removed. I thought the court system had helped to make the world safer as manufacturers, the medical profession, and others learned they would be held accountable and that the profit motive actually had to take safety into account. But now I know I was wrong, it's a lottery. Thanks for updating me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. How about some facts to back uo your one liner

Yeah that family that burned to death in their GM auto really won the lottery when they sued...what is your family worth when you see them barbeque'd like a burger and then find out the company KNEW their gas tanks were dangerous?

[Ilsa]

17. Thank you...

You said before I had to.

[struggle4progress]

12. "Junk-food lawsuits: the real cause of today's high medical costs"

[underpants]

15. Doesn't sound like capitalism to me

Oh that's right we haven't had capitalism since the first business subsidy, tax breaks for corporations, and price floors for agri-business (sugar) started.

[depakid]

18. Brilliant- and no conflict of interest either in Nebraska....

A rational person might think that with all the talk of so called "personal responsibility" there might be a mention of corporate responsibility once in a while.

After all, corporations are persons under the law....

that would make too much sense though... just like a law in Nebraska banning suits against fast food companies- LOL.

As if a Nebraska jury would ever buy into that.... to a lot of folks there, a feedlot smells like money!

[Misunderestimator]

19. Especially hypocritical having had gastric bypass surgery herself...

how many poor overweight people without health insurance have that option?

And these people are against cloning? You'd think cloning would be the solution they are seeking... everyone should be in perfect health and perfect physique and good little soldiers for their army.

[baba]

26. True-and you need to be really obese to have the surgery.

You can only get the surgery if you are severely obese. The rest of us need to struggle to take off the weight.

[SmokingJacket]

22. The threat of potential lawsuits has made a lot of fast food

companies clean up their acts. You can get a (halfway) decent salad at McD's now -- transfats are being eliminated, too.

I know I sometimes need the threat of a lawsuit to get me outside and shovel my sidewalk in a timely manner.

No one kind of corporation should get blanket protection that no one else receives.

[AuntiBush]

25. Oh, whatever...

it takes, to sure-up all big corporations, doctors, hospitals, government, you name it from being accountable to the very people (we, the people) that keep them driving in their Roles Royce's.

Nothing like living in a world wide mess!

[kskiska]

27. It's not about obesity or fast food

They're trying to cut the legs out from under the Democrats by denying lawyers' income, that would be donated to the party. In a page 1 article in the Washington Post today the Republican agenda to hold office indefinitely is described:

(snip)

But, one rung away from the White House, many Bush allies make no effort to disguise their glee at the payoffs these ideas could bring to interest groups allied with the GOP, and the heartburn they would cause interest groups allied with the Democrats.

In an interview last week, for instance, Norquist unabashedly dissected the political overtones of legislation to limit lawsuits.

"This will defund significantly some of the trial lawyer community, and it rewards the business community, the Fortune 500 guys who have been increasingly supportive of the broad center-right coalition," he said.

(snip)

The Bush administration has also challenged predominantly Democratic organized labor, especially public employee unions, on a host of fronts. The most recent was a major revision of civil service rules at the Department of Homeland Security that the administration would like to expand to the entire government over the next few years. The National Labor Relations Board has helped make it harder for unions to represent temporary workers, among several rule changes pushed by GOP appointees.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47559-2005Jan29.html

[Conservativesux]

31. Follow the money, like always !!