On the recordFebruary 25, 2016
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to some of the points raised by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member. First of all, it is not this bill that removes cases from State courts to Federal courts. It is the United States Constitution and the Federal laws that have been passed by this Congress for over 200 years that recognize the importance of the principle of diversity jurisdiction and of having parties from different States in cases in controversy able to remove those cases to the Federal system, which represents all citizens, not just the citizens of one State, as State courts are sometimes perceived as doing. Secondly, it is not this legislation that creates the kind of circumstance that the gentleman from Michigan claims it does of denying access to the courts. Rather, it is the purpose of this legislation to treat people fairly who have been treated unfairly in the process. If you have no liability in a case, you should not be sued in the first place. If you are sued by a lawyer who is trying to manipulate the rules in order to keep a case in a court that he has forum-shopped--in other words, he has picked the court that he prefers it to be in--that individual or business, as quickly as possible, should be able to seek redress from the Federal court so as to have a determination made about whether or not it is indeed a party that is ``plausibly liable,'' which is a Supreme Court standard to be held in the case.…





