Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

TexTushHog · 02-24-2010, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

At the risk of going on a brief tangent, what pisses me off is the guys that pass these huge bills don't bother to read them.

Why? There are legislative summaries prepared by committee staff. And frankly, if a Congressman isn't a lawyer, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he'll understand what he reads. And even if he's a lawyer, he'll need special expertise in the field in question to really understand what the bill means.

I've practiced law for almost 30 years, have two board certifications, and I can read even a small bill in the health care field and I wouldn't be able to tell you what it means without hours and hours (25- 100) of research. And even then, I won't truly understand if because I don't have a great deal of background in that area.

On the other hand, give me a bill that deals with civil procedure or personal injury law, and I can give you an idea what it means in pretty short order (unless it's in a specialized field of PI that I don't do like med mal).

You need a high degree of expertise to understand a bill and that's what committee staff reports do. The people who work for committee staffs do have that high degree of expertise in that subfield, they know the existing law in that area like the back of their hand, and the can pickup things scanning a bill that I wouldn't pick up if you gave me a year to study it. The same is true with a Congressman. They need to know what it does, the pros and cons of the bill, but they don't need to read the bill to know that.

MrGiz · 02-24-2010, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Why? There are legislative summaries prepared by committee staff. And frankly, if a Congressman isn't a lawyer, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he'll understand what he reads. And even if he's a lawyer, he'll need special expertise in the field in question to really understand what the bill means.

I've practiced law for almost 30 years, have two board certifications, and I can read even a small bill in the health care field and I wouldn't be able to tell you what it means without hours and hours (25- 100) of research. And even then, I won't truly understand if because I don't have a great deal of background in that area.

On the other hand, give me a bill that deals with civil procedure or personal injury law, and I can give you an idea what it means in pretty short order (unless it's in a specialized field of PI that I don't do like med mal).

You need a high degree of expertise to understand a bill and that's what committee staff reports do. The people who work for committee staffs do have that high degree of expertise in that subfield, they know the existing law in that area like the back of their hand, and the can pickup things scanning a bill that I wouldn't pick up if you gave me a year to study it. The same is true with a Congressman. They need to know what it does, the pros and cons of the bill, but they don't need to read the bill to know that.

Is that a sufficient excuse for many of them to ignore their constituents and over spend their money? I have heard so much bullshit wrapped up in a three letter word.... it's sickening! There is no shame in DC!!

Giz

TexTushHog · 02-25-2010, 01:43 AM

I don't think the complexity of the issues being dealt with has much to do with how much money you think government should spend. That is much more an issue of what your economic and philosophical beliefs are.

My point was simply directed at how silly the notion was that each member of Congress should read every line of every law. It just doesn't make any sense, quite frankly.

DFW5Traveler · 02-25-2010, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I don't think the complexity of the issues being dealt with has much to do with how much money you think government should spend. That is much more an issue of what your economic and philosophical beliefs are.

My point was simply directed at how silly the notion was that each member of Congress should read every line of every law. It just doesn't make any sense, quite frankly.

Actually, it makes perfect sense that they should not only read it, but understand the bills they read.

First of all, this is a Representative Republic, which means they are in DC representing their constituencies. So they hire people to read the bills. People who may have no loyalties to their districts. Come on!!! If they can't understand it, how in the hell are they going REPRESENT the people that voted them into office?

How hard is it to understand that the Constitution was created to place limits on the government and to keep the power-brokers from running amok on WE THE PEOPLE.

Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That means that if it isn't a part of the 17 enumerated powers, that the states or the people have the power, not the Congress. How hard is that to fathom? It's fargin' plain English.

atlcomedy · 02-25-2010, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Why? There are legislative summaries prepared by committee staff. ..........................The same is true with a Congressman. They need to know what it does, the pros and cons of the bill, but they don't need to read the bill to know that.

You make a fair point & I don't have a problem with staff work. What if you allow me to revise my orginal comment from "read" to "understand what is in" a bill?

As many of our esteemed 535 admitted after TARP questions came, "well I didn't know that was in there." etc. etc. That is negligent in my mind.

Maybe us folk on Main Street give Congress too much of the benefit of the doubt in that we say "read" as shorthand for "understand & comprehend"

charlestudor2005 · 02-25-2010, 09:23 AM

At the risk of un-hijacking this thread

I'd like to discuss the next step in this sad tale: i.e. the IRS worker's widow who sued the pilot's widow.

The basis of the lawsuit is that the pilot's widow was negligent because she knew about the pilot's state of mind or intentions and did nothing to stop it.

Well, this seems to me to be somewhat far-fetched. First of all, it assumes facts that may never be uncovered. Even close friends indicated that this was totally out of character.

Finally, I think the pilot's widow can assert marital confidentiality to prevent the plaintiff from inquiring about what kind of communications she (pilot's widow) had with her husband.

atlcomedy · 02-25-2010, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

At the risk of un-hijacking this thread

I'd like to discuss the next step in this sad tale: i.e. the IRS worker's widow who sued the pilot's widow.

The basis of the lawsuit is that the pilot's widow was negligent because she knew about the pilot's state of mind or intentions and did nothing to stop it.

Well, this seems to me to be somewhat far-fetched. First of all, it assumes facts that may never be uncovered. Even close friends indicated that this was totally out of character.

Finally, I think the pilot's widow can assert marital confidentiality to prevent the plaintiff from inquiring about what kind of communications she (pilot's widow) had with her husband.

Forgive me, I haven't been following this too closely (I have a feeling this is a much bigger story in Austin than RoW

), but I got the impression the Suicide Pilot was broke. I can't imagine any life insurance policy would pay out on this. Did the wife have any real assets of her own?

charlestudor2005 · 02-25-2010, 09:49 AM

Don't think anyone knows whether or not insurance exists. But in Texas, Plaintiff will get that information.

However, insurance normally excludes coverage of intentional acts. So, I don't know what the issue is, unless they are trying to get at the spouse's assets on a theory that she was allegedly negligent. IRS worker would normally look to Workers' Comp on injury/death at work, but this kind of injury/death is excluded from WC coverage.

I could be wrong, but I still don't think they are going to be able to reach the spouse's assets because I don't think they'll be able to prove knowledge on her part, and therefore a duty to act.

[BTW, if she does have insurance, they have a duty to defend her, even if they do so under a reservation of rights.]

atlcomedy · 02-25-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Don't think anyone knows whether or not insurance exists. But in Texas, Plaintiff will get that information.

However, insurance normally excludes coverage of intentional acts. So, I don't know what the issue is, unless they are trying to get at the spouse's assets on a theory that she was allegedly negligent. IRS worker would normally look to Workers' Comp on injury/death at work, but this kind of injury/death is excluded from WC coverage.

I could be wrong, but I still don't think they are going to be able to reach the spouse's assets because I don't think they'll be able to prove knowledge on her part, and therefore a duty to act.

I hear ya - & for now I'm ignoring the merits of the case, which like you, I tend to think are weak - my point is he was broke, insurance won't pay out...unless she was independently wealthy what's the point? I mean you can't get blood out of a turnip....

charlestudor2005 · 02-25-2010, 09:58 AM

Now I understand your point, and AGREE!

Willen · 02-25-2010, 11:03 AM

Since you can make many times your government salary defending or representing people in the private sector against your former employer, it's no surprise that people cross over. Knowledge of proceedures and practicies, not to mention how rules are interpreted, is a valuable commodity.

And, per the earlier comment about this guy declaring war on IRS, individuals have no prerogative to declare war.

pjorourke · 02-25-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I can't imagine any life insurance policy would pay out on this.

Not so fast tort breath. The typical life insurance policy (individual that you buy yourself vs. group that you get from your employer) has something called an "incontestability clause" which says that after a period of time (usually two years) the insurance company can't fight a claim. You are either dead and they pay or you are not and they dont (assuming all premiums paid). So as long as the policy is more than 2 years old, it WOULD pay. Suicides tend to be somewhat spontaneous -- nobody plans them 2 years ahead.

charlestudor2005 · 02-25-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Forgive me, I haven't been following this too closely (I have a feeling this is a much bigger story in Austin than RoW

), but I got the impression the Suicide Pilot was broke. I can't imagine any life insurance policy would pay out on this. Did the wife have any real assets of her own?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Not so fast tort breath. The typical life insurance policy (individual that you buy yourself vs. group that you get from your employer) has something called an "incontestability clause" which says that after a period of time (usually two years) the insurance company can't fight a claim. You are either dead and they pay or you are not and they dont (assuming all premiums paid). So as long as the policy is more than 2 years old, it WOULD pay. Suicides tend to be somewhat spontaneous -- nobody plans them 2 years ahead.

I wasn't thinking life insurance, but rather liability policies (such as homeowners, umbrella, etc.). Life insurance is POD to beneficiary. The only way I think the plaintiff could make a claim on the proceeds is if there were NO beneficiary, and it paid into the deceased's estate.

OneHotMale · 02-25-2010, 04:34 PM

What I find to be interesting is that she filed this lawsuit before she had even buried her husband. I am sure that she was inundated with attorneys contacting her in some fashion after his name was revealed.

charlestudor2005 · 02-25-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneHotMale

What I find to be interesting is that she filed this lawsuit before she had even buried her husband. I am sure that she was inundated with attorneys contacting her in some fashion after his name was revealed.

Nooooooooo, it's not even possible. The ethics rules don't allow it.