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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

the effects of smoking were unknown

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?