Trevor, I don't think liberalism really has much to do with this ridiculous litigation.

I prefer the simpler answer: Samuel Hirsch is just a greedy man. He sees the fast-food industry as a delicious Big Mac waiting to be devoured. Forget about "deep pockets," I call it "deep stomachs."

This nonsense goes on because win or lose, the lawyers still get paid. So there's no incentive for the lawyers to turn down frivolous lawsuits. Since most of our lawmakers are themselves lawyers (both Republicans and Democrats), I don't see these lawmakers pursuing any meaningful reform in our justice system in the near future.

The media is also a big incentive for these greedy lawyers. Even if the coverage of the lawsuit is negative (like the Fox News piece you cited), Hirsch still gets exposure, which helps attract more clients.

There are liberals and conservatives alike who think these types of lawsuits are ridiculous, so this wasn't the forum to attack liberal policy; however, the left has certainly set the precedent in the past that enables these suits to exist.

One of the biggest reasons for not seeing any reform with regard to these tort cases is not due to the fact that many dems and republicans are lawyers themselves, but primarily b/c liberal lawyers like Peter Angelos and Stanley Hirsch contribute millions to the Democratic party to ensure they will argue against such reforms. In 2001 alone, lawyers contibuted over $28M to Democratic campaigns, as opposed to under $1M for Republicans...that's something to ponder...

TB