White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer gestures as he speaks to reporters at the White House briefing room April 2, 2003 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
May 15, 2001
Mokhiber: Ari, in 1998, a jury in San Antonio ordered Diamond Shamrock refinery corporation to pay a widow, Donna Hall, $42 million for the death of her husband at the refinery. The jury thought that this was a way to punish the company for knowingly using unsafe equipment.
Governor Bush at the time pushed a tort reform law that limited that award to $200,000.
Last year, President Bush took $5,000 from Diamond Shamrock's political action committee.
Two questions.
One, is the President now concerned that there is a growing public perception of him siding with the oil industry on everything ranging from energy prices to workers' rights?
And two, does he have second thoughts about tort reform in light of the Diamond Shamrock case?
Ari Fleischer: First of all, the President again is going to do what he think is right regardless of whether or not one group in society supports him or opposes him on it. And he will continue to do that.
In the case of tort reform, what has happened all too often is that consumers pay far higher bills than what is necessary. Instead of people being able to get justice from the courts, the courts have turned into a system where lawyers are able to come in, especially trial lawyers, and drive up health care costs, consumer product costs, for everybody in society.
Under the Patient Bill of Rights for example, under the President's approach, patients will be entitled on an unlimited basis for economic damages suffered. When it comes to non-economic damages suffered, the President does believe, and so does a bi-partisan group of Senators, that there ought to be a reasonable cap.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Russell Mokhiber
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. He is also founder of singlepayeraction.org, and editor of the website Morgan County USA.
Mokhiber: Ari, in 1998, a jury in San Antonio ordered Diamond Shamrock refinery corporation to pay a widow, Donna Hall, $42 million for the death of her husband at the refinery. The jury thought that this was a way to punish the company for knowingly using unsafe equipment.
Governor Bush at the time pushed a tort reform law that limited that award to $200,000.
Last year, President Bush took $5,000 from Diamond Shamrock's political action committee.
Two questions.
One, is the President now concerned that there is a growing public perception of him siding with the oil industry on everything ranging from energy prices to workers' rights?
And two, does he have second thoughts about tort reform in light of the Diamond Shamrock case?
Ari Fleischer: First of all, the President again is going to do what he think is right regardless of whether or not one group in society supports him or opposes him on it. And he will continue to do that.
In the case of tort reform, what has happened all too often is that consumers pay far higher bills than what is necessary. Instead of people being able to get justice from the courts, the courts have turned into a system where lawyers are able to come in, especially trial lawyers, and drive up health care costs, consumer product costs, for everybody in society.
Under the Patient Bill of Rights for example, under the President's approach, patients will be entitled on an unlimited basis for economic damages suffered. When it comes to non-economic damages suffered, the President does believe, and so does a bi-partisan group of Senators, that there ought to be a reasonable cap.
Russell Mokhiber
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. He is also founder of singlepayeraction.org, and editor of the website Morgan County USA.
Mokhiber: Ari, in 1998, a jury in San Antonio ordered Diamond Shamrock refinery corporation to pay a widow, Donna Hall, $42 million for the death of her husband at the refinery. The jury thought that this was a way to punish the company for knowingly using unsafe equipment.
Governor Bush at the time pushed a tort reform law that limited that award to $200,000.
Last year, President Bush took $5,000 from Diamond Shamrock's political action committee.
Two questions.
One, is the President now concerned that there is a growing public perception of him siding with the oil industry on everything ranging from energy prices to workers' rights?
And two, does he have second thoughts about tort reform in light of the Diamond Shamrock case?
Ari Fleischer: First of all, the President again is going to do what he think is right regardless of whether or not one group in society supports him or opposes him on it. And he will continue to do that.
In the case of tort reform, what has happened all too often is that consumers pay far higher bills than what is necessary. Instead of people being able to get justice from the courts, the courts have turned into a system where lawyers are able to come in, especially trial lawyers, and drive up health care costs, consumer product costs, for everybody in society.
Under the Patient Bill of Rights for example, under the President's approach, patients will be entitled on an unlimited basis for economic damages suffered. When it comes to non-economic damages suffered, the President does believe, and so does a bi-partisan group of Senators, that there ought to be a reasonable cap.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.