HOT COFFEE!

HBO is showing the documentary Hot Coffee tonight. It covers the infamous McDonald's coffee trial and clears up many of the misconceptions and propaganda. It also goes into the propaganda relating to tort reform and how it affects the average citizen and how big business spins the media.

According to its website:

"Hot Coffee reveals what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the Albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald’s, while exploring how and why the case garnered so much media attention, who funded the effort and to what end. After seeing this film, you will decide who really profited from spilling hot coffee."

Since there were so many posters here and on Pinecam that were outraged over the incident, perhaps it might be worth a watch.

http://hotcoffeethemovie.com/

It has been selected for numerous independent film festival including Sundance.

So instead of the anti-tort propaganda, we will get to listen to the pro-tort propaganda? Super.
And who won, the lawyers won! They always win.

Another propaganda film masquerading as a documentary. It's not like Ms. Saladoff, the writer of the mockumentary, doesn't have an agenda to forward with her film. Past President of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, counsel for 25 years in product liability, personal injury and medical malpractice. Yeppers, that's an unbiased person looking for truth if ever there was one...........

The documentary’s cast list is composed of prominent plaintiff’s attorneys, law professors, and public officials. We doubt that Kenneth Wagner, counsel for Liebeck herself, will concede that any coffee served over 140 degrees could result in third-degree burns similar to those sustained by his client. It is unlikely that Alex Winslow, executive director of a consumer advocacy organization, will reference the National Coffee Association’s statement that McDonald’s coffee conformed to industry standards. (“Scalding Coffee Debate: When Does Java Become Lava?,” The Palm Beach Post, September 7, 1994, available at 1994 WLNR 1466981 (originally printed in The Wall Street Journal). We suspect that no interviewee will quote coffee connoisseur and Costa Rica coffee plantation owner William McAlpin’s opinion that coffee is best served at 175 degrees. (Id.). Finally, we do not expect Joanne Doroshow, founder and executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, to mention the numerous other courts placing legal responsibility on the spiller rather than the maker of the coffee.

http://abnormaluse.com/2011/01/spill-be ... susan.html

Kind of like "Undefeated", I should think... Now, THAT'S a propaganda film masquerading as a documentary....

Watch it and judge for yourself, rather than condemning something that you have not yet viewed.


I am curious, since PS is such an ardent advocate of limiting federal power over state laws, do you favor federal tort reform? Do you believe that it is constitutional for Congress to regulate state laws on medical malpractice and put limits on what states may allow in regard to jury verdicts on non-federal cases?

Given the lunacy of the prior decisions, it has the power regardless of whether or not it was ever intended for them to have it. If they can tell a man that he can't grow his own wheat to feed to his own chickens, if they can tell you that you must participate in commerce of their choosing, what limits are there to federal power? That's the whole point of your regressive agenda Dog. It works against the interests of the citizens of the states in all instances. You just don't want it to have the power your ideology has created in it when it runs contrary to your feelings on a given issue. I don't want it to have the power in any instance.

No, the federal government should not have a say in the matter. It is a domestic concern of the sovereign states along with every other instance of individual welfare of a citizen. It is just as wrong for the federal government to be involved in this as it is for it to be involved in Social Security, Medicare, prohibiting a state from establishing a religion, prohibiting a state from taking guns out of their cities or legislating against certain kinds of arms, telling a man he can't grow his own wheat for his own chickens and all the other trespasses it has made into the sovereignty of the states. It's all bad Dog - every single last bit of it runs contrary to the Constitution.

While you can attempt to label my "agenda", is it not the conservatives of the Republican party who are pushing for federal tort reform?

You are not seriously putting forth the notion that only one wing of one party supports it, are you? Even if you are tell me Dog, what other remedy is left given the usurpation of the regressives to consolidate all power of governance, foreign and domestic, into the general government? Are you willing to give up the usurpation that you agree with to get rid of that with which you disagree? I suppose not, and so all that is left is to use the power that has been usurped to ensure that you are harmed in the advance of your agenda at least to the same extent that you benefit from it in the hopes that all of it will eventually become something taken away. At this point the best course of action may be to put the pedal to the metal and hasten the demise that the regressive agenda is sure to bring about so that a return to the original principles and intent has a chance of coming about in my lifetime. If $1.5 Trillion a year is good for the economy and the general welfare of the nation, why stop there? Why not enhance the good 10 fold and make it a $15 Trillion annual deficit? If monetizing $1 Trillion of the debt is a good idea, why stop there? Why not have a $14 Trillion Quantitative Easing and pay off all the debt we have?

Wow...

"usurpation"
"regressive agenda"

...all in one message! You forgot:

"oppressive"
"socialist"

...and all the other usual trigger words of the Sovereign Citizen / Federalist / Original Intent / Constitutional-worship checklist...

You're slipping....

It's a two sided coin LJ. The same poor reasoning that led to many of the SCOTUS decisions you favor is going to result in just as many with which you might disagree. It fails any test of logic to give the federal government unlimited power via tortured interpretations and then expect that it will not wield that unlimited power in ways with which you might disagree. Would it not be a much better situation for all concerned if the general government held strictly limited powers, instead of virtually unlimited ones? If it didn't have the power to tell a farmer that he could not grow his own wheat to feed his own chickens it would certainly not have the power to tell any of the states what the limits of punitive damages are. But given that the consolidationists have given the federal government the power to reach into an individual life and tell that person what they may or may not grow to feed themselves, how can it be argued that they don't also possess the power to determine how much money a court or jury may award them?