That's a startling and bizarre claim, and possibly not trivial as a sign: The Washington Times is among the most flagrant rightwing propaganda outlets masquerading as news in the country. It no more "leans left" than Fox television or Clear Channel radio.
And I know that this poster doesn't come with this stuff on his own - so what's the deal there?
I stand corrected, I meant the Washington Post. I was thinking of the NY times.
This topic is about tort reform. The fact that lawyers donate so much money to politics; at the top, but mostly to Democrats, allows us to investigate if there is a correlation between donor money and political activism. This is how the swamp works. Obama Care did not address tort reform, because that would have kill the golden goose. It could have saved money, and maybe even made Obama Care feasible, but there would have been conflict of interests for the leaders who like donations.
The Republicans are more likely to address this. However, it is not clear whether this based on intellectual honesty, or whether this position is there to leverage future donations, so the lawyers have to pony up to Republicans, to create a change of heart. The wild card is Trump, who does not need the money and is less beholden to the donor class. He is a businessman and looks for cost savings. Trump may push for tort reform, while donor cost will need to increase, to help push back, since the Democrats are not all that useful out of power.
The main problem I have with lawyers, is they get to police themselves, while doctors are policed by lawyers via malpractice cases. Malpractice is not usually criminal, but is mostly civil. Lawyers are not perfect, either, so why are there not a similar amount of lawyer malpractice law suits? Why don't lawyers need to have malpractice insurance? It is because lawyers already have tort reform in their own profession. It saves everyone money.
Say a skilled lawyer is able to get someone off for crime A. Another lawyer, who is not as good, has a similar case , but he is unable to pull it off, so his client goes to jail. The question is, how does this differ from two doctors, performing a similar complicated operation, with one doctor being successful and other not quite so, leading to complications for their client? Both lawyers and both doctors tried their best, at a difficult task, but two different skill levels led to different outcomes.
Lawyers will not sue each other in this case, due to lawyer on lawyer tort reform. I believe in fairness and if we leave malpractice for doctors on the table, we also need to do it for lawyers so they can understand how this can get unfair. Picture how easy it would be to shake down accused lawyers, in front of jurors, especially if large law firms are known to have deep pockets. The sharks will eat the barracuda. I would watch that on TV.