Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senate Nears Revision of Class Actions (into Fed Court - passage likely)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 11:49 AM
Original message
Senate Nears Revision of Class Actions (into Fed Court - passage likely)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12327-2005Feb9.html

Senate Nears Revision of Class Actions
Passage of Legislation Backed by Bush and Business Appears Certain

By John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 10, 2005; Page A04

President Bush and his business supporters won a large and long-sought victory yesterday with a series of Senate votes that virtually guarantee enactment of legislation restructuring rules for class-action lawsuits.

Consumer groups -- which warned that the new rules would result in far fewer class-action cases being heard by courts -- had pinned their hopes on amendments they said would soften the impact of the Class Action Fairness Act. But the amendments failed, in votes that highlighted the potency of the lobbying coalition behind the bill as well as the more conservative balance of power in Congress.

The measure is designed to funnel class-action suits with plaintiffs in different states out of state courts and into the federal court system, which is historically much less sympathetic to such litigation. It is the first installment of several measures Bush is seeking this year to curb what he described in a speech yesterday as excessive lawsuits that sap the risk-taking spirit on which a "capitalist society" depends. <snip>



It is of course not news that lobbyist Walter Dellinger helped to write the class action bill http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10bush.html?oref=login

Bush Holds Event to Back Curbs on Class-Action Lawsuits
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and STEPHEN LABATON

ASHINGTON, Feb. 9 - <snip>What neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Dellinger mentioned was that Mr. Dellinger and his law firm, O'Melveny & Myers, were paid $780,000 since 1999 - including $580,000 in the last two years - by two of the major lobbying groups set up by companies to try to push the legislation through Congress.

The figures, available in Senate lobbying reports, list Mr. Dellinger as one of three lawyers at the firm who lobbied on its behalf. They show that the group that gave Mr. Dellinger and his firm the most money was the Institute for Legal Reform, which was set up by the United States Chamber of Commerce and has been a major force behind the bill. <snip>

The Senate voted 59 to 40 to reject an amendment by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, to exclude lawsuits involving civil rights and wage claims. By a 60-to-39 vote, the Senate tabled an amendment by Senator Mark Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas, sought by state prosecutors who said that the measure could make it more difficult for them to pursue claims in class-action and environmental cases.

But the most significant victory for the business groups, and setback for the opponents of the bill, was the defeat of a measure sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, that would have given federal courts the ability to actually consider many of the state cases that would wind up on their dockets once the legislation passed. <snip>


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-legal10feb10,1,5754750.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=3&cset=true
President Pushes to Limit Class-Action Suits
Bush asks Congress to move quickly on a bill that would shift most such claims to federal courts, which are seen as friendlier to business.

By Maura Reynolds and Sara Clarke, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON — President Bush pressured Congress on Wednesday to act swiftly to pass legislation restricting class-action lawsuits, arguing that "frivolous" claims harmed economic prosperity.

On Capitol Hill, senators debated and defeated a number of suggested amendments to the bill, known as the Class Action Fairness Act. The measure would move a significant number of consumer-protection suits and other class actions from state to federal courts, which are considered friendlier to business.

The bill, which came close to passing Congress last year, is on a fast track for Senate approval by the end of the week.

It is the first of as many as five legal overhaul measures scheduled for action in Congress in coming months, as the administration and congressional Republicans move to limit the influence of trial lawyers, who are major financial backers of Democrats.<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. WTF is this?
:wtf:

"The Senate voted 59 to 40 to reject an amendment by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, to exclude lawsuits involving civil rights"

I fully expected the Rethugliklansmen to vote against Civil Rights Protection, but which "Democrats" voted against this?

:wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I don't know - transfer to Federal Courts hurts a bit - but to refuse to
then let the case that was tranfered to its sole jurisdiction is nuts -

or better said - a loss of civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Perhaps the vote down of the wording to give Fed Cts jurisdiction was
because the GOP knew the Courts would assume jurisdiction.

and not because the GOP/Media are into destroying civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Carper, Dodd, Feinstein, Kohl, Nelson (NE)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Nelson (D-NE)


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00006

the rejection of this amendment alone should have obtained 100% Democratic rejection of the whole pro-Big Business/Corporation bill ... but, 18 Democrats voted 'yea' anyway ...

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2 to to S. 5 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 )

Statement of Purpose: To amend the definition of class action in title 28, United States Code, to exclude class actions relating to civil rights or the payment of wages.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC