Breaking News
Comcast Close To Buying NBC
I don’t understand the logic of the folks, in this case, largely my fellow Democrats – who voted against the legislation to shield companies from lawsuits brought by folks who gained weight. It’s just kind of ridiculous.
Nicknamed the “cheeseburger bill,” the measure stems from lawsuits accusing McDonald’s of causing obesity in tens of thousands of children. The food industry has asked Congress and state legislatures to protect it from liability, and so far, 21 states have agreed.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Those are the members of Congress that like to think that their role in government is to protect us from ourselves.
You mean like all those Republicans who thought they knew better what to do with Terri Schiavo’s body than… Terri Schiavo?
Before I’d pass judgment on some one’s vote, I’d have to read the entire statute.
While the talking point was about suing fast food chains for making people fat, there may well have been other provisions in the statute that are objectionable. Putting such provisions in a bill like this one is standard operating procedure.
Do you have a link to a copy of the bill?
No, Oliver, I said nothing about that case. And since you have no idea what my position is on that matter, maybe you would like to choose another strawman to beat on.
JD, you explicitly talked about members who “think that their role in government is to protect us from ourselves”. That describes the Schiavo ghouls to a tee.
James: It seems Thomas doesn’t do permalinks right. Go there and do a search for “h.r. 554″. This pdf link might work as well.
Oliver,
A quick read doesn’t reveal anything like I referred to, but the act itself is rather sloppily written, inviting as much litigation as it purports to eliminate. This is not unusual.
The courts are actually very well equipped to deal with lawsuits like these.
Has anyone ever won such a case against McD’s or other fast food enterprises? Have any of the cases gone to trial?
Why should Democrats have gone along with it? For the same reasons that they all got on the steps to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with ‘under God’ pronounced loudly? That made them look like idiots. Did it get them any votes?
Same with this thing. Will it swing any voters?
Now, why precisely should Democrats get out in front to give big corporations liability immunity they might not deserve?
Put it this way: twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years ago, what would you have been saying about an attempt to give tobacco companies that kind of immunity? Would you have favoured it? Given what we now know about Big Tobacco’s duplicity, would you have been right?
Here’s the big difference: the effects of smoking were unknown and big tobacco conspired to keep the data out of the public’s hands. Everyone knows your ass is gonna get fat from a Big Mac.
You must have some old talking points. According to Morgan Spurlock, Big Food is conspiring to keep data out of the public’s hands as well.
Fifty years ago Humphrey Bogart was dead because of smoking. There was no confusion then about the fact that cigarettes killed you.
This immunity-from-liability stuff is the same as the monopolies and licenses passed out to the East India Company and literally hundreds of other corrupt monopolies under the old monarchies. It’s a simple case of corporations buying a license to break the law, and the only thing more absurd than issuing such licenses is the thought that MacD’s ability to make us fat is something we need to defend at the cost of other interests.
Why did Dems vote for this. As always, the answer is simple; Money.
Money from lobbyists funds the out-of-control election process. Take the freakin’ power away from the ownership class. Get the lobbyists from both sides to vacate that former swamp known as Washington D.C.
Oliver;
Here s the big difference: the effects of smoking were unknown and big tobacco conspired to keep the data out of the public s hands. Everyone knows your ass is gonna get fat from a Big Mac.
How is it one can assume common sense goes to public understanding of what makes them fat, whereas deliberately inhaling smoke does not?
Oliver:
You mean like all those Republicans who thought they knew better what to do with Terri Schiavo s body than& Terri Schiavo?
you explicitly talked about members who think that their role in government is to protect us from ourselves . That describes the Schiavo ghouls to a tee.
Actually, many, if not most, activists on Terri’s side were trying to protect her from her husband, who had a somewhat questionable claim that she told him she would want to die (not in writing, not repeated to her parents or other family or friends.) Had there been some documentation to support his claim, I and many others would have supported him. In fact, I probably would have supported him had his parents not been desperately trying to keep her alive and offering to take custody and all responsibility.
You and others who try to paint this as people/govt trying to meddle in a “family matter” conveniently ignore that a large part of the family were opposed to letting her die. With the information available to the public, there was no right or wrong answer…so I believe that no one can say that the other side was wrong. How do you know what Terri wanted?
But a I agree with you on the hamburger bill. I assume you feel the same way about firearms that are purchased legally.
Several courts, including the Supreme Court found that Mrs. Schivavo’s desires were quite clear. They, and most Americans, didn’t find her husband’s claim questionable at all.
Why vote against this? Because giving entire industries blanket immunity from lawsuits is asinine. Because we’re supposed to be the party that trusts the judiciary — that trusts that these suits are best dealt with *by* the judiciary, rather than the Keystone Korporatists in Congress. If these suits — which are just about as rampant as flag-burning, BTW — are bogus, the courts can determine that and throw them out; if they’re not, McDonald’s et al. shouldn’t be immune to them.
Oliver:
Several courts, including the Supreme Court found that Mrs. Schivavo s desires were quite clear.
Nope. I’ll refrain from calling you a liar, because I believe that you believe what you wrote. The fact is that the Supreme Court, without comment, refused to hear the case. That is very different from siding with one party or the other. As far as I know, the Supreme Court hears cases only on the basis of procedural error, but even if I LIED about that detail, the fact is that they didn’t hear the case and made no comment one way or the other.
The supreme court refused to hear the case, which let the ruling of the lower court stand – and that ruling sided with Mrs. Schiavo and her husband.
I’ll take up the argument for those who voted against this bill.
Why does a specific industry need special protection from product liability? As the last paragraph of the linked news story points out, most such lawsuits have been dismissed. One lawsuit was recently reinstated and is pending.
There’s no evidence that existing product liability laws treat the fast food industry unfairly. Creating a special exemption for one industry sets a precedent for more such exemptions in the future.
Oliver: This is only the second time I have commented here, though I check the site out often. You usually are spot on. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE!
The bill was NOT limited to lawsuits against fast food companies, which every Democratic House Member I talked to opposed. I am going to explain this without legalese as much as possible and if you need more I can go into more detail.
The bill prohibited lawsuits where someone claims they had some specific health problems associated with obesity (heart conditions, high blood pressure, etc) — not obesity itself — and where that person claimed the health condition was the result of eating food.
Two hypotheticals — You buy a frozen vegatable and cook it. A food additive in it kicks up your already high blood pressure and you have a heart attack. Under this bill, you could not sue the manufacturer of that vegetable.
Even more likely — you go to GNC and buy a nutritional supplement (a “food” under federal law) that says it will help you lose wait. It has fen phen in it. You have a heart attack. Under this bill, you can’t sue that nutritional supplement company.
I can understand the feeling that suits against McDonald’s for making you fat are ridiculous. The fact is there have been fewer suits of that nature than you can count on one hand. All of them have been dismissed.
So why do you need a bill about it? The answer may be that the Republicans are trying to portray Democrats as too cozy with trial lawyers by forcing a vote on these extreme cases. Another reason, which I am surprised you did not suspect, is that they wanted to sneak in give aways to corporate interests in a bill that seems like it is just about fast food lawsuits, but really isn’t.
Oliver…
This has the opportunity to turn into a stupid back and forth, so this will be my last comment on the subject: refusal to hear a case by an appeals court is most definitely NOT the same as saying that the other party was right. The appeals court is, in effect, saying that the lower court did nothing wrong in their hearing. The appeals court may or may not agree with the outcome in that lower case, but they have no reason to re-hear a properly rendered decision.