Jim Sensenbrenner: “the people who support this amendment would have everyone believe that unless the amendment is adopted, we are taking…”

“the people who support this amendment would have everyone believe that unless the amendment is adopted, we are taking away peoples' rights to sue. That is not the case. There is a constitutional right to sue, and even if we wanted to take that away, which we do not, that could not be taken away under the Constitution. Second, those who support the amendment would have everyone believe that there is a different standard of justice that is applied. That is not true either. The jury makes the determination of economic damages based upon the evidence that is placed before it. That jury cannot discriminate based upon race, based upon age, or based upon gender. It is based upon the evidence that is introduced in that trial and admitted into evidence. And they make the determination on what the economic damages are, and they issue a verdict that will make a plaintiff who has been a victim of the negligence of another, whole. What we are talking about here is punitive damages which are over and above making the injured party whole, in placing a cap on those punitive damages. Punitive damages are not intended as compensation, they are intended to be punishment. In the case of Browning Ferris Industries versus Kelso, 1989, all nine members of the Supreme Court of the United States expressed concern regarding punitive damages. Those justices are not extremists, those justices are not Republicans, those justices look at the law in the cases that come before them.”