The flood stage crested with this action...
and liability for liferafts is wearing thin.

Treading water in the economy at best, interest rates about to skyrocket, turning the work force into waterboard torture sessions...

This is a result of the law of political physics: No action, no class.

This is simply the Political Corollary of the Golden Rule: He Who Has The Gold Can Afford To Buy Those Who Write Legislation.

Is is truly corruption if everyone seems to be doing it?

"Is is truly corruption if everyone seems to be doing it?"

Yes, it is. And corrupt governments fall. Maybe not soon, but they do fall. The only question at this point is how many of us they are going to take down with them before we finally get pissed off enough to drive them out.

According to your post, this bill will only prevent class actions from being filed in state court (your second paragraph). Venue in federal court is still possible. Have I missed something? Making a uniform standard for bringing class actions seems desirable, doesn't it? It doesn't seem like a good idea to have the ability to bring a class action suit in Mississippi if it can't be brought in Oregon, especially when the class action is based on a federal statutory claim. Do you want Mississippi law deciding how a federal claim should be handled?

Regular Reader seems to forget about the existence of a document called the "Constitution" which says that all powers not explicity given to the federal government devolve to the states.

The Constitution also says that Congress (ie the federal government) controls and regulates interstate commerce. I assume that you would agree that class action lawsuits, especially when plaintiffs come from Maine to New Mexico, affect (either good or bad) interstate commerce. I understand the 10th Amendment and its ramifications, but the 10th Amendment's power has been greatly diminished in the past century by, namely, the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause. In fact, the 10th Amendment's power today is "police power", and I'm sure several people reading this would argue that federal agencies like the FBI have even usurped state police powers.

In fact, the Supreme Court over the past several decades has struck down only one federal law based on a Commerce Clause challenge, and that has come in the last few years. (A federal law banning guns within 100 yards of a school was struck down because it had no impact on interstate commerce, and states were free to enact legislation banning guns in school zones.)

I'm sure that if you were to ask any Constitutional Law scholar, he or she would be glad to tell you that the Commerce Clause is much stronger than the 10th Amendment Constitution as of today

And yet, you did not answer my question, do you think it's a good idea to have, for example, a Mississippi state court judge deciding federal law claims?

Well the judge who wrist-slapped crossburners in Mississippi was appointed by decree when Congress denied him a seat. He now gets to hear class actions at said level.

Ironic. All he needs to dow is appoint a Chancellor...

do now*

I don't know which judge you're referring to and to which case "he" slapped the wrists of some cross-burners.
But, if you're looking to throw stones at some unnamed judge who is a Republican, you need to look at your own party as well. Racists (if this unnamed judge does actually qualify as a racist) aren't limited to one party. Case in point: Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan - he's a Democrat by the way.

And, your post proves exactly my point: Do you want a racist hate-monger from Mississippi presiding over a class action lawsuit - before he is confirmed as a federal court judge?

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams