Home / Letters To The Editor


Posted On March 24, 2004
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


Immunity with that?

By: David Martosko
Newspaper: Fort Worth Star Telegram

In response to your Wednesday editorial "Immunity with that?":

Dismissing the need for a law to block fast-food lawsuits because trial lawyers haven't yet struck pay dirt is misguided. Noted food-lawsuit cheerleader John Banzhaf already has vowed to "sue them and sue them and sue them" until a single judge or jury "opens the floodgates."

In the face of a no-holds-barred litigator like Banzhaf, who revels in being called a "legal terrorist," a doctrine of pre-emption seems prudent.

Last summer, a group of trial lawyers held a conference in Boston to "encourage and support litigation against the food industry."

Sponsors of the "cheeseburger bill" apparently took them at their word. And why not? This is the same cabal of lawyers that got rich suing tobacco companies.



printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Letters

Immunity with that?
Dismissing the need for a law to block fast-food lawsuits because trial lawyers haven't yet struck pay dirt is misguided. read more here »

OpEds

Hard-boiled animal activists could threaten vaccine supply
In the post-9/11 world, the phrase "national security" conjures up images of dirty bombs, jihadists, white powder and biohazard labels. It should also bring to mind another picture: an egg. read more here »

NO. Wrong to use tax code to punish soft drink makers and industries.
Despite opposition from two-thirds of Americans, President Obama has latched onto exploring one proposal to raise billions of dollars for health care reform through so-called “lifestyle taxes” on soft drinks. read more here »


Copyright © 1997-2009 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.