| george bush to sign bill to stop law suits against companies right or wrong?

george bush to sign bill to stop law suits against companies right or wrong?

steve b asked:


this bill will stop law suits against consumer and consumers rights…denise quaid as an example and blood thinners administered to his new born babies accidentaly.should professionals charge for their services and be protected for their mistakes?
unless george is reconsidering..the news high lite on the web earlier earthlink.net posted the article however it’s not a done deal yet..accordingly more details will be released today the bush administration is working one piece at a time to enact this bill

Related posts:

  1. Why isn’t it required by law to state whether companies test on animals? 愛 asked: I’m just pondering why? Doesn’t the consumer have...
  2. CA law AB 585 about consumer rights for missed appointments passed in what year? Dolores B asked: Also when was CA SB 101 passed...
  3. 10 POINTS FIRST ANSWER! Criminal Consumer Law? asked: Limitations upon the government’s right to search and...
  4. First to answer gets 10 points! Criminal Consumer Law help? asked: Which of the following is defined as the...
  5. Two weeks ago or so I went to a store and applied for credit , at the store that day I charged approx. $2000. dan asked: I THAN RETURNED TO GET TWO COMPUTERS FOR...

Filed Under Law & Ethics |

Tagged With , ,

Comments

4 Responses to “george bush to sign bill to stop law suits against companies right or wrong?”

  1. Vince K on June 27th, 2009 6:57 am

    It will never happen, unless the Consumer Protection Act has been destroyed within the last 10 minutes.

  2. Casey on July 3rd, 2009 1:13 am

    No, I think taking away this right is just giving more power to the large corporations, who obviously are in cahoots with GW.

  3. Top Cat on July 4th, 2009 12:45 am

    depends if the lawsuits were done for the right reasons (meaning valid cause) or if the lawsuits were done just to get money out of a person/company (based on lies)

  4. wendy c on July 7th, 2009 8:32 am

    ?? I would certainly want to see the exact wording of this “bill”, if it exists. I think it is a Constitutional right to have a case heard before a court of law. To prohibit certain cases, would (in effect) say that the President is taking the power to prejudge a case, by limiting a persons’ access to the court.
    Obviously.. there are frivolous cases out there, which should be dealt with. I don’t think Bush has the legal authority to do this, as you describe it.