Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: Clinton voted against, Obama for.

[philly_bob]

First bill of Bush's second term. Generally considered pro-business, part of the Republican anti-trial lawyer agenda. Makes it harder for consumers to sue corporations. Transfers jurisdiction from state courts to federal courts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32674-2005Feb17.html

On this issue, Obama was definitely pro big business. Obama supporters, please defend this vote.

If it's already been brought up and thoroughly discussed, please forgive me and just give me a link.

(In some ways this is like Biden's vote for the Bankruptcy Act -- for those Biden supporters who remember that heated DU discussion!)

[depakid]

1. That's an easy one.

He believed he needed to ingratiate himself with the corporate establishment in preparation for his presidential run.

Hillary didn't need to do that, so she was free to vote responsibly.

[SunsetDreams]

2. Unbelievable...making something out of nothing

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=lb-109-1-1



Major Provisions

Consumer Class Action "Bill Of Rights" And Procedures For Interstate Class Actions

Section 1711 — Definitions

S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, defines "class actions" (under current law) as any civil action filed in federal district court under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Procedure, as well as actions filed under similar rules in state court that have been removed to federal court.

Section 1712 — Coupon settlements

This section is aimed at certain proposed settlements of class actions in which the plaintiffs' lawyer and the defendant work out a settlement that provides class members with coupons instead of monetary awards.

The section would require that attorneys' fees be based on either the value of coupons that have actually been redeemed by class members or the hours actually billed in prosecuting the case. The goal of this section is to eliminate incentives for attorneys to enter into collusive settlements that provide little recourse to the victims.

Section 1713 — Protection against loss by class members

This section would prohibit judges from approving class action settlements in which class members are required to pay attorneys' fees in an amount that would result in a net loss to the class members until after a hearing takes place to determine whether the non-monetary benefits to the class substantially outweigh the monetary loss. The section would also require the court to make written findings on whether the non-monetary benefits substantially outweigh the monetary loss.

Section 1714 — Protection against discrimination based on geographic location

This section would prohibit settlements that award some class members a larger recovery than others solely because the favored members of the class are located closer to the courthouse in which the settlement is filed.

Section 1715 — Notifications to appropriate federal and state officials

This section would require defendants to notify certain state and federal officials about the details of class action settlements and delay the effective date of the settlement until 90 days after they have done so. The specified federal officials include the Attorney General and, in cases involving financial institutions, the relevant federal regulatory authorities. State officials entitled to notice include officials with regulatory jurisdiction over a defendant in any state in which any member of the class resides.

This section is the same section as was contained in S. 1751 (an earlier class action reform bill that was the subject of a failed cloture motion on October 22, 2003). However, an additional section with detailed font and format requirements has been removed from the previous version of this bill due to intervening Judicial Conference rules.
_________________________________________________________

Hillary didn't want to protect consumers? hmmmm

you post this up here, but yet you appear to not have researched the bills provisions?

[philly_bob]

3. Believe it. You're saying that CAFA2005 was a GOOD bill?

Selectively quoting from CAFA2005 doesn't make it progressive and pro-consumer. It was a centerpiece of Bush's pro-big business program. Every single Republican (in both House and Senate) voted for it. And Obama voted with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_Action_Fairness_Act

Look, nobody expects a legislator to have a perfect voting record. But every Biden supporter I spoke with was embarrassed by his dumb Bankruptcy Act vote and most Clinton supporters are probably embarrassed by her dumb Iraq Resolution vote.

Denying that Obama ever made a dumb vote is not being forthright.

That said, I'm going to drop out of the fray and leave the discussion to others. G'night.

[bhikkhu]

4. See previous thread. This has been argued to death more than once.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5259803

As in many bills like this, there are complex elements that don't present themselves without reading. And then complex contexts to each senator's vote.

When I see a candidate vote for something which looks vile on its face, I don't think first - "the bastard! and I thought that I knew him!". I think, maybe there is more to the bill, or maybe the bill has been unfairly characterized. Reading the information readily available, that seems to be the case.

[philly_bob]

5. Thanks for the link. Obama at least voted for Dem amendments to CAFA.

I missed that discussion.