Patricia Schroeder: “this amendment takes this case, or this bill, and it applies it to the case that many have alleged they are most…”

“this amendment takes this case, or this bill, and it applies it to the case that many have alleged they are most concerned about, and that is the issue of judge shopping. What my amendment says is that this procedure may go forward wherever there is just one or two judges in that district, so obviously one could pick it or where they do not use randomly applied, normal procedures for assigning the case inside the circuit. So, if there is any evidence of forum shopping, then this procedure comes forward because on that issue I think the gentleman from California has a legitimate concern. My understanding is that in proposition 187, no matter what they say, it was a district with 25 judges, and they were randomly assigned. But if there are districts with one judge, of which of course there are, and if there are districts, and I do not know if there are, that do not use random assignment so forum shopping would be possible, then this is insurance against forum shopping because forum shopping really would corrupt justice, and I think that this is very important because this amendment then brings down the inconveniences this bill might impose on certain circuits to just those who were really trying to misuse the system.”