I never thought I would be quoting him, but Newt Gingrich set forth the following on his website:
Allow me to pose these questions to you:
If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of assembly?
If the people do not have religious freedom, then do they have freedom of speech?
If the people do not have religious freedom, do they have freedom of the press?
Can any nation which does not allow true religious liberty then call itself free?
The answer to all these questions, of course, is a resounding NO!
So, I assume that Newt would agree it is simple logic that:
If the people to do not have the freedom to seek justice in the courts, do they have any other freedoms? I suggest that, although Newt Gingrich supports tort reform, if he were to answer honestly, he would be compelled to say “a resounding NO!”
There is absolutely no statistical study honestly performed which can conclude that tort reform is good for anyone but insurance companies.
If a person is injured by someone else’s negligence, but that negligent party is not required to answer for their negligence, how does the injured victim survive? They will be compelled to rely on society–you and me. So, rather than a negligent party being responsible for their negligence, you and I will ultimately pay in their place.
Does this sound like justice?
I leave you with the following; slightly modified and borrowed from a very famous quote:
First they came for the freedom fighters, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Freedom Fighter;
Then they came for the journalists, and I said nothing—
Because I was not a journalist;
Then they came for the rule of law, and I said nothing—
Because I was not directly affected by the rule of law;
Then they came for the constitutional rights, and I said nothing—
Because I had never had my rights infringed;
Then they came for the lawyers, and I said nothing—
Because I was not a lawyer;
Then I suffered injury, and I protested—
But no one said anything–
Because justice was gone.