Courting Disaster

Rating:
Summary: The Danger of Unfettered Judicial Powers
Review: A book that succintly explains the rampant abuse of power orchestrated by the Supreme Court. A development facillitated by the Marshall Court's "discovery" of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison.

Rating:
Summary: unbelievable...read on....
Review: I have not completely read the book yet (though I have skimmed it considerably). What prompted me to write was what I have read and as I was clicking channels I heard a religous speaker discussing this book. His concern was regarding medical lawsuits and the need to put a cap on jury outcomes. This prompted me to go online and read a bit. Let me say, that if none of you have been through malpractice, you need to understand that first of all there are caps in place for pain and suffering. I am a sufferer of malpractice. Due to an UNNECESSARY surgery because of a wrong diagnosis, I have had 10 surgeries since and now going on my 11th! I lost my job, have had no income for 2 years, lost all my medical benefits, have used up all my savings to include my retirement fund, have exhausted all my credit cards to survive and after a year am still waiting for social security disability to make a decision on my case. Something I have worked my whole life towards. Trust me, I'd rather be a productive human being verses living my life in bed in excruciating pain for the last 3 1/2 years! In my state the low cap is $360.000 the high cap includes anything from taking a woman's fertility to death of a patient is set at $608.000. The other ruling is for economic loss resulting from the malpractice. There are strict rules regarding this and it is necessary to hire an economic specialist to figure out exactly what your loss of income is from your age of malpractice until your age of retirement, set by our government. Then, for some odd reason it is necessary to reduce this amount to today's value. Don't forget also that you must pay your attorney for all fees plus 1/3 of your settlement. Also, the jury's have no clue about any of these caps, reductions or fees paid, therefore the award they "think" there giving you is not what you get. For goodness sake, according to the "law", I am not fairly entitled to what I lost. Hmmmm, but the doctor is not only allowed to practice, most doctors who are sued, but who work for a hospital are not only having the hospital take responsibility for their actions, but the hospital itself is who is actually being sued. Not to mention that apart of the agreement necessitates the plaintiff NOT to name the physician saw that he will not be reported to the board and have any black marks against his record. Could this be the reason so many malpractice cases are out in the world? The doctor knows he can continue making blatant mistakes because he can get away with it. Trust me, I am not only NOT gaining anything from this suit, but I have had my life,health,happiness, and finances effected for the rest of my life and I'm 45 years old, 42 when this whole mess began. So, in conclusion, why anyone would fight to put additional caps on malpractice is beyond me....the victim certainly gains NOTHING, and what little you do get is far less than one could have made or is entitled to by our current government laws. It is also being stated that our medical costs to include medical insurance are continuously on the rise because of these high settlements. First of all, no one ever receives the award amount, the judge always changes it to the cap amounts to include a reasonable amount based on ones economic loss. Second, I am one those people who had to pay for my COBRA health plan and when that ran out am now paying over $400.00 monthly just for hospitalization as to continue my desire of restoring my health to atleast be somewhat functional again.(hopefully but without any positive words from the specialists) I must pay my for my own prescriptions since having to cover my own medical insurance am not offered a plan for this and also I have been stuck with thousands of dollars of doctor/hosptial bills for things NOT covered by the insurance I have. I also chose the best possible plan. So, is it really the malpractice claims causing the rise in healthcare costs or the doctors and hospitals that are responsible for them? One last thought, there is a BIG difference in what is awarded and what one receives. The public needs to know this since the entire argument revolves around the high awards. Again, these award amounts that one hears about on television programs, or BOOKS is only a number.....NO ONE EVER sees this amount, so let's report the facts, Please!



Rating:
Summary: Pat your mind is twisted
Review: John Marshall was the greatest thing that ever happened to the court. Before he came along, the Supreme Court was not equal to the other two branches of government. When he died in 1835, we had, and still have three equal branches of government. Pat calls the current court liberal????? He states only three justices are conservative. Wake up Pat! The court was liberal from about 1954 to 1975, and from that point on it has become more and more conservative. In a rare interview Justice Stevens (who use to be considered at best moderate, is now the only justice with liberal leanings) - Well you may or may not agree with what I have said, but no one can honestly refute what Justice Stevens said - " the one thing that I have noticed since I was appointed in 1975, and that is - with every replacement on the bench, the replacement has been more conservative than their predecessor." One last thing. The media and others are speculating who Bush will appoint when Rehnquist dies or is forced to retire in the next year, and who will replace Stevens who is 84. Stop speculating, because Stevens in very good shape at 84 and is sharp as a tac. I am not a Rehnquist fan at all, but think people should send him a get well card, instead of predicting when his end will come. I disagree with most of his decisions, but I still wish him, and all the Justices the best of health, unlike a certain book writer that prayed on TV that the Lord would take away the three liberal justices.

Rating:
Summary: INTERESTING READ
Review: many years ago the supreme court judges gave themselves power over congressional law, judges continue to tear america down with power that should belong to the PEOPLE OF THE USA.....
PAT HAS A KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF THE ABUSE OF THE SUPREME COURT (AND OTHER FEDERAL JUDGES)..CONGRESS CAN PUT A STOP TO THIS............................

Rating:
Summary: Must read if you love this country
Review: Pat Robertson? Yes, I get a little uncomfortable when he squints his eyes and talks to God on the 700 Club. But, this is not just the religious right talking. This book goes back to the fundamentals of our Constitution. You will learn why the Supreme Court has failed us. This institution was designed by our founders to be the least powerful of the three branches of government but has usurped power where there was none. This book will help you understand why even the liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz believes that the Supreme Court was off base in Roe vs. Wade and why this judgement will eventually be overturned. To think that many of our laws are based on the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights - frightening! Pat Robertson doesn't just complain. He outlines a plan to correct the wrongs of the SC. The American people were smart enough to take the first step and reelect George Bush and increase the Republican majority in the Senate.
Buy this book. Help save the American way of life!

Rating:
Summary: Pat should stick to...
Review: running his slaves in the diamond mines. This so-called christian writes a book slamming "activist" judges on the Supreme Court, yet had no problem when they installed a conservative president into office.

People need to wake up and realize that the judiciary system is basically the only thing keeping us from becoming a police state run by a tin-pot dictator.

Rating:
Summary: Somber Warning
Review: This book gets to the heart of a social problem that, unless it is changed, will have negative consequences for generations to come. It isn't news that the Supreme Court has created law where none existed before. But this book goes beyond description to explain the historical motivation behind this threat to our established "by the people, for the people" form of government.

If the tide isn't turned and laws continue to be made by judges who change their opinions on whims, we will become a nation governed by tyrants, rather than written code. The contradictions he cites by Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy clearly demonstrate how these Justices change their own minds and in the process establish "laws" that are ambiguous, unpredictable, and chaotic.

Robertson stresses the urgency of the matter. This isn't some philosohpical debate. It has direct consequences for Americans. He explains the difference in definitions over the term "constitution," explaining that when federal judges use the word they mean laws created by the judiciary, whereas the general public perceives the term to refer to the document creating the republic in the first place.

This is an action oriented book. It is an alarm to do something about the information shared. Thoroughly documented, Robertson's book traces the chronology of how the system grew so dysfunctional. The action he calls for is spelled out in the conclusion.

Rating:
Summary: Not at all Thorough!
Review: Within the next four years, at least 3 (if not 4) Supreme Court Justices are expected to retire, leaving vacancies that must be filled. What type of judges should fill those spots is a question of much debate. It was with that question in mind that Pat Robertson wrote this book.

Now, first let it be said that although I am not a Christian, I am in strong agreement with a good amount of Robertson's observations. The courts have indeed usurped the power of democratic legislatures by striking down statutes (and legislating policy) on flimsy grounds. And, yes, the federal courts have certainly become more liberal in how they interpret the constitution, preferring not to look at what the document SAYS, as much as what these unelected judges think it should MEAN. Robertson speaks eruditely to both points and for that, he earns 2 stars.

Unfortunately, I cannot give him 3 more. Having a master's degree in Politcal Science from a top southern institution, I have studied quite a bit to do with law and the judiciary. As such, I found much of Robertson's history either caricaturized or simply wrong, many of his positions unviable if not contradictory, and several of his arguments unpersuasive.

Let me highlight the history. To Robertson's credit, he goes a long way in showing that many of the founders were Christian (something that is hard to deny). What Robertson does not do, though, is make a case that since they were privately christians, that God is somehow in our constitution. Pat asserts that He is, but anyone reading the constitution's text sees that He is not. There are many other historical gaffs in the book (like citing anti-federalist Patrick Henry as exemplar of the founder's intent, and deist Thomas Jefferson as an example of a good Christian.)

As far as points being either nebulous or contradictory: Robertson states over and over that he believes the constitution should be interpreted by the founder's original intent. There are several problems: first, the founders are dead and we can't ask them what they meant. Second, the only record of the constitutional convention we have is by James Madison dictated quickly and from memory. Third, is the intent to be that of the founders or the several hundred people who ratified the constitution into law via the states? I go into this because these are large problems that Robertson simply glosses over.

Robertson also tells us that we should interpret the constitution, when possible, by discerning its quite clear text. With this point I agree (and I have as much respect for Scalia's textualism as Robertson does). But with that, Robertson is quick to tell us that somehow, the 'free press' clause doesn't permit things like protection of pornography and that the 'free speech' clause doesn't protect flag burning. To quote Justice Hugo Black (himself a textualist): "I always thought that "Congress shall make no law," meant "Congress shall make no law.") Apperently, Robertson doesn't think so, even while he professes that where the text is unambiguous, we should rely solely on it.

I hate to ramble on with these points, but I do want to make clear how unsatisfactory this book is. If one does want to read a similar position articulated more intelligently, I would suggest that one reads (a) Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America,' (b) a new collection of Scalia's opinions called "Scalia Dissents," and even a book by legal progressor Robert George called "The Clash of Orthodoxies." All make the case more persuasively than Robertson's book.