I think you are very amiably exposing yourself as a J.D. and I am bound to be found lacking in cerebral heft, but let me try answering your question.

I really don’t recall saying that “Congress” should not regulate. Its role is to appoint and oversee regulating agencies, while it makes laws referred to by and dealing with issues coming out of those agencies. The FDA can make its determinations away from the spectacle of Congressional “hearings”.

What I do not want to witness is an attempt by this administration to portray business as an antagonist. The sight of Congressmen behind long stretches of tabletops with nameplate IDs, making threats via microphones, holding up a jar of peanut butter and asking someone to eat it, is sending a message.

To business owners: We are the ones in power now, do not cross us. To average Joes: Government is here to protect you from the business owners. Corporate America is the evil thing out to destroy you. Government is your friend, big government is a bigger friend.

Is that the end run of this administration? Making the average Joe believe that his interest is served by government and not the private sector? I think so. So, when I spoke of Congress flexing its muscles, I meant for show, for public spectacle, because it had no power anyway. Just the power of the TV camera and the message.

For the record, I think John Edwards is a disgusting human being. It would not be fair of me to lump every trial lawyer in with Edwards, just as it would not be fair for all companies to be lumped in with the Peanut Co. of America. But, that’s what Congress appears to want to do.

Thanks for the response.

I agree with much of what you said. Specifically, there are many frivolous law suits and they cause needless suffering to people that get dragged into the process. (It happened to my wife once, but, I won’t bore you with the details.) I agree that lawyers have a strong monetary motivation to file frivolous lawsuits. I also agree that congressmen are show boating media whores. Finally, I agree that Congress is not the FDA (they did create and have oversight over the agency, however).

My problem is this: Sometimes businesses and their owners or employees are negligent. The man processing and selling poisonous peanuts is a pretty good example of this. My evidence for this are the conditions in his facility and the eight dead people.

If Congress should not regulate products for safety because of too much onerous regulation, then it is up to individuals to find relief in the court system. If the lawyers who pursue the cases in court are the Darth Vader’s of our justice system (thanks Rush) and must be stopped, then there is no accountability for the business owner who is negligent. Remember, I AM NOT SAYING ALL BUSINESS OWNERS ARE NEGLIGENT. Some are. They need to be held to account.

If we accept that Congress should not regulate AND we accept that the lawyers who sue on the behalf of people who are harmed or killed by negligence should be stopped, there is no accountability.

I believe we must drop one of the premises. Either we accept the trial lawyers as the remedy for negligent business practice OR we accept that regulations are needed to keep our food supply safe. Liberals think we need more of both.

Regarding the peanut man:
If the man who sold the poison peanuts has to sell his business, justice served.
If he has to give the money to the families of the dead, justice served.
If he does jail time, justice served.

If any of the above happens it will be because of a trial lawyer who may have an expensive hair cut.

Do you agree that in some cases a business owner needs to be held accountable?
How should it be done?

You are a conservative? Really.
:
:

Several years ago, my husband was sued for nearly $60 million. We are not worth anything remotely close to that - trust me. He was a salesman for a distributor of a certain medical product.

The product was found to have oil residue on the implant left during the manufacturing process that, in some cases, resulted in the implant being unable to secure itself in the body. It was an error made in the manufacturing process, and in only some of the many implants produced and sold. My husband, of course, had nothing to do with the error, besides consulting during the surgical procedure.

However, lawyers for plaintiffs sued my husband (along with the surgeons and the manufacturer) so as to try to keep the suits in the local court (in order to obtain a larger jury award).

There were patients who had no problems -none, zilch-with their implant whatsoever, but they were suing for removal anyway so as to try to get money for “pain and suffering.” They had perfectly good implants removed just for money. (And believe me, ripping out a perfectly good, secured implant probably did more damage in the long run.)

My husband and our family suffered a great deal over this, nearly lost all that we had worked for and sacrificed for, overnight. This incident only solidified my view that there are many people who will do anything - even the most irrational of things - in order to get a bigger piece of the pie.

There are those who deserve our help, and those who rape the system. I don’t believe in making things easier for people to rape the system.

And, to tie this in to our discussion. What purpose would it have served to call up the President of the company who manufactured the implant to berate him publicly? The company was sued and ended up having to put itself up for sale. Justice served.

To make a point to bring up business owners to threaten them and humiliate them is nothing but a freakin side show. Congress is NOT the FDA. Congress is a bunch of grandstanding politicians, eager for a popular cause to use to score political points.

To paraphrase, you said that people who are harmed or killed by unsafe products should look to the courts for relief.

Questions:

What is your position on the trial lawyers who take these cases?
What would your response be if John Edwards won a big cash settlements for the families of the eight dead people who consumed the poisonous peanuts?

I’ve been a conservative for a long time and it seems we have had trial lawyers in our sights since Reagan.

I’m genuinely interested in your thoughts.

In passing she mentioned the creation of the Food and Drug Administration. Its creation was a response to certain medicine being sold at the time. Apparently, you could purchase medicine for alcoholism that was 40% alcohol, headache medicine with cocaine in it, and other medicines containing opium and arsenic in these catalogs.

She did not go into specifics but I am guessing that some of these medicines caused addiction, birth defects and even death. Since the creation of the FDA, the need to sue for thalidomide-like injuries has been reduced but not eliminated. (A strong argument could be made that a more robust FDA could reduce these drug related problems further.)

A strong FDA might even be conservative. I remember Republicans saying we should not be able to buy inexpensive drugs from Canada (free markets) as they were likely unsafe, presumably because of insufficient standards. After all, these Republicans were arguing, Canada does not have the F.D.A.

I do agree with your point about Congress being publicity whores with little concern for the public welfare. My preference would be for the majority of both houses of Congress to be replaced with fresh blood. Maybe then they could conduct the oversight that I think is necessary in a beneficial and productive way, instead of posturing and pretending to care.

For the record, if I saw Congress flexing its muscles I would be in a state of shock and therefor unable to get turned on.

The sight of Congress flexing its muscles into the business arena, bringing up every corporate exec under the sun who may have done wrong, is not something that should turn you on.

Congress flexing it’s muscles is something that should turn every American on. Unfortunately, a majority of those muscles have atrophied from lack of use.

bsjones, what do you do for a living?

Do you move paperwork around in a basement office, along with 100 other brainless types waiting for lunch hour? Where is lunch today? Hmmm, the cafeteria sounds good.

:
:
This is NOT the role of Congress, dude. They can call their little publicity forum the Congressional SubComittee on Oversight and Investigations or the This is the Easiest Job on the Hill, but it still reeks. If people are sick or injured from products, they can sue through the court system. The Judicial Branch is set up for such things.

The sight of Congress flexing its muscles into the business arena, bringing up every corporate exec under the sun who may have done wrong, is not something that should turn you on.

John Galt’s descendant testifies before the meddlesome Congress here:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/peanut-gallery-mum-salmonella-republ

Download the clip and enjoy.

The current Congress is no doing their best to avoid actually being bipartisan, especially the majority party. The current POTUS, a graduate from the Senate after not quite completing a single term, has now adopted the same strategy for the Executive branch, following the lead of the House Speaker. The Speaker who now claims to be non-partisan rather than bipartisan or partisan because to do so would be to admit that there is another party.

In the old days, a Democrat POTUS like LBJ would have the Minority Leader over for a few cigars and drinks and they would set the agenda for the next couple of weeks. Now we get “I won” .. enough said.