Of course, the lady is right; I'd be a little irritated that he'd wasted my time, but I would politely explain that tort law only provides compensation when you've been injured by someone else's mistake.

For every McD's hot coffee case, there are (no exaggeration here at all) millions of claims made that completely escape the attention of the media. The vast majority are settled before being filed, of the ones that are filed the vast majority are settled before trial. Judgments are a rarity, multimillion dollar judgments are very rare amongst the judgments that are rendered; rarer still are the multimillion dollar judgments that survive the various levels of appeal.

Yet the media has somehow convinced America that McDonald's cases happen every day; it is laughable how we conservatives distrust the MSM on almost every point except this one.

The vast majority of lawyers I know are simply trying, day by day, to solve the multitude of problems that people come to them with. Why do we focus on the lawyers and not the plaintiff in the McD's case? Why on the lawyers and not the jurors who rendered their decision? Why on the lawyers and not the judges -- who may or may not be lawyers -- who instruct the jury and then get to decide whether or not to reduce the award made by the juries?

The MSM has a love/hate relationship with lawyers. Ask yourself why, and I think you'll begin to see things a little differently.

As a trial lawyer, I certainly hope I would make it in your 10% that should avoid the noose. But I'm curious, since lawyers only make arguments to judges and juries, and it is the judges and juries that make the actual decisions (like the McDonald's case), would you be in favor of hanging 90% of the judges and jurors as well?

I very much like Rick Perry, and of the declared candidates, he is the only one I really, truly want to vote for in the primaries. His tort reform record does not concern me in the least; his immigration record bears some scrutiny, but he clearly has the best record of executive experience in the field, and he is dead on with issues near and dear to my heart like abortion, the Second Amendment and drilling for our own oil (particularly in the Gulf!).

I'm a Christian, as well as a very conservative, rock-ribbed Tea Partier and Republican. I can add to my bona fides the fact that I'm a longtime Rush 24/7 member, and have read every book by Ann Coulter and most of her columns. Need I go on? Okay, I'll also point out that I'm currently working on helping to pass I-26, an amendment to the Mississippi constitution that will, in effect, permanently ban abortion in a great Roe v. Wade workaround.

Oh yeah, I'm also one of the two attorney's who have filed Mississippi's class action case against Obamacare in federal court. I could go on, but I think that's probably enough establishing of my conservative bona fides for this discussion.

Let me go on the record as saying that I heartily disagree that national tort reform would help the economy at all. Tort reform has done nothing to benefit the public or doctors; it has helped some insurance companies, though only marginally. It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but in reality, it's a bust.

Plus, national tort reform is antithetical to our constitutional values. If any state wants to "reform" their tort laws, I'm okay with that, as long as I get a chance in my state to take part in the discussion and cast my votes accordingly. But on a national level? Listen, we're trying our best to stop the biggest federal power-grab in history with Obamacare, and ya'll want to go one further by imposing federal dictates with regard to state tort laws too? Tell me, which section of the constitution allows THAT?

I'll continue to support Rick Perry, and hope that other trial lawyers will too. But I also want to caution my fellow conservatives from falling into the trap of thinking that tort reform is a conservative value; it is not.

PETA's collective head would really explode here in Mississippi. My son is eight, and disappointed that he missed his first shot at a deer. I know six year olds who have bagged a buck. A few minutes ago my son was watching some touchy feely cartoon where a big, evil hunter shot charging rhino (while talking on a cell phone), and the rhino fell dead and slid to a stop a foot or two from the hunter. My son's response? "Cool."

I love Mississippi!

If forced to sit through this movie I will not hesitate to gouge out my eyes and rupture my eardrums.

Here's the link to the last doc, which was re-filed this morning: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/63098000/Response-by-...

Ask and ye shall receive. Here are links to every substantive filing except Lt. Gov. Bryant's separate brief (relating to 10th Amendment issues), which will be filed tomorrow:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/62938757/Amended-Peti...
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/62938629/Motion-to-Di...
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/62024879/Mississippi-...
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/62939597/Exhibit-1-to...
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/62939759/Exhibit-2-in...
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/57464296/Florida-PPAC...

Roe wasn't wrong to find a right of privacy, but was wrong to not look at unborn children as human beings who are endowed with the right to life and to equal protection of the law (specifically the laws against murder). I too would like to revisit that particular issue with the Court.

Amen!

Bingo.