As usual, Digby manages to make sense of it all:
I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood the rationale for the conservative tort reform movement.
The idea is to protect the poor overburdened corporations against all of those greedy paraplegics, grasping widows and their unctous trial lawyers.
We still need lawsuits, however. The bench must be stacked with pre-programmed federalist society troops so that they can handle the all important issue of sexual licentiousness. One is encouraged to bring lawsuits to compel Democrats to testify about their private lives, to sue publishers of pornography and to shut down strip clubs. They should be used liberally to promote the unification of the Christian church and the State by bringing suit to force governmental entities to promote religion as a necessity for citizenship. We are, after all, Slouching Towards Gomorrah.
Lawsuits are also quite useful for individuals to sue the federal government, but should never be used on behalf of the federal government to sue corporations or individuals. The strict constructionists of the Supreme Court have recently ruled, however, that States are immune from lawsuits brought by their own residents because it makes the State feel undignified. Clarence Thomas says he could read between the lines of the Constitution that the Founders thought that was just plain icky.
Finally, as with Mr Barr, lawsuits should be used to sue Democrats whom they maintain have slandered them during the course of a withhunt in which they, the plaintiff, regularly called the subject of said witchhunt everything from a rapist to a pervert on a daily basis.
The Democrat will not have the same privilege under "tort reform" because he is assumed under law to be evil and therefore without standing.
See?
