I support a products liability bill. I think the rationale for it is not perfect. I think arguments can be legitimately made against a Federal products liability bill. But I think a case can be made and has been made for the idea that when goods are shipped in interstate commerce and the same good is for sale in different States, that there ought to be a Federal standard for how to handle tort litigation if there is an alleged defect in those goods because it is the same good, whether it is being sold in New Mexico or being sold in Illinois. However, there is no rationale for the second part of this bill, because as presently written, the first part of this bill deals with products liability, the second part, title II, does not deal with products liability. It deals with all tort litigation, and I am referring specifically to the punitive damages provision. As written, the bill says that all punitive damages actioned in State court are under the control of Federal legislation.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a products liability bill during a House committee meeting.
Share
More from Adam Schiff
We respectfully urge the Commission to evaluate these renewal applications based solely on the factual record and the governing statutory standard, free from political considerations.
The Office of Legal Counsel used to have sufficient independence from the president to give sound legal advice to the executive branch. Under Trump, it is an office that merely tells the president what he wants to hear.
This should be seen as a partisan measure to insulate the president and his corrupt activities from congressional subpoenas when the majority flips.
“The Supreme Court needs reforms urgently to restore the American people’s confidence to that body,” said Schiff. “Congress must enact an enforceable code of ethics for Supreme Court Justices, particularly in light of Justices on this…





