it is clear that this is not about what the appropriate standard should be for burden of proof for punitive damages. The issue is not what that appropriate standard should be. The issue is, who ought to be setting that standard? If Members believe that the States have a place in our federation, which is what I have heard over and over and over again, I submit to my colleagues that the States ought to be determining for themselves what their own burdens of proof are and that we ought not at this level, at the Federal level, to be telling them that. Regardless of whether we think it ought to be one thing or the other, higher or lower, the States have the right to make this decision, not my colleagues here in this body.
Melvin Watt: “it is clear that this is not about what the appropriate standard should be for burden of proof for punitive damages. The…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the role of states in setting standards for punitive damages during a congressional debate.
Share
More from Melvin Watt
unequivocally . . . it is the role of Congress, not FHFA, to make the decisions that chart the path out of conservatorship and to the future housing finance system.
I want to be clear that the reason I would not raise my hand is because I would not make a unilateral decision.
if you look at my record throughout my whole life, from the day I started in the practice of law in a civil rights law firm, you will find nobody, or few people, who are more committed to the things that you all have talked about today.
There is no rational reason, if you think about it, why a superior tax lien would be having an interest rate of 10, 11, 12 percent when a lien subordinate to it is going at 4 percent or 5 percent.





