Bill -

I think you are confused. President Bush is the one who is on the Saudi payroll.

Edwards is a self made millionaire who made his money by working hard and becoming a succesful lawyer.

And what the heck is CNS News ?

I'm not a scientist, nor am I well read on this topic, but it would seem that the science on infant cerebral palsy is inconclusive at best. Seems to me there must be some reasonable arguments on the other side, or Edwards wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in court, and no jury would've decided in his favor. As it turns out, not just one but numerous juries decided in his favor. Hmm. Why couldn't these doctors' and insurance companies' defense teams sucessfully refute his arguments with expert testimony, if they were based on such bad science? Are they, as well as the jury pool in the great state of North Carolina, just exceptionally stupid? And, if these cases were based on bad science, why didn't the judges just toss them out as frivolous?

You also have to put yourself in a lawyer's shoes. His job is to represent his client, and his client's position, to the best of his ability. That could, conceivably, involve advancing positions one may not personally agree with. Are you equally hard on the lawyers that represent murderers and rapists in criminal trials, especially the ones that know their clients are guilty?

For the record, Bill, you and I are ultimately on the same side of this issue politically. I don't like Edwards, I wouldn't want him as VP or God forbid as President, and I hope he loses in November. BUT I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this line of attack. There are lots of legitimate things to criticize him for. Being a rich, successful lawyer isn't one of them.

This isn't about Edwards being wealthy. It's about him using emotional arguments rather than facts (along with creepily claiming to channel to voice of a child with cerebral palsy) to win lawsuits that were, in the beginning, based on junk science.

Excuse me Bill -

What the heck do you know about cerebral palsy? Are you a scientist? Are you a doctor?

Have you ever read a book about neurological disorders?

How long has it been since you even took a basic biology class?

You read a couple of newspaper articles and bunch of propaganda on some blog (written by God knows who) and now you are throwing around terms like "junk science" like you are an expert.

Please inform us if I am wrong about your medical credentials - but if not, then please stop pretending to klnow things that you don't.

So, "a", do you really believe he was channeling the child? Or is Bill unqualified to decide on that issue?

Hello Michael -

I don't know what Edwards was doing - but I would sure like to see you and Bill argue it out with him in front of a jury... Perhaps you could convince the jury that he was not sincere ;-)

My point is that Bill does not know enough about the merits of the case in question to make a judgement about it.

It is BS to take a few lines of rhetorical flourish out of Edwards' closing argument and try use them to discredit a legal case that took months to unfold.

"Seems to me there must be some reasonable arguments on the other side, or Edwards wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in court, and no jury would've decided in his favor."

And there speaks someone who doesn't know the first thing about the typical jury today. That old saw about "trusting someone too stupid to get out of jury duty" has more than a grain of truth. In addition, BOTH SIDES and the judge work real hard to make sure the jurors don't get all the facts, don't ask questions, and don't think. There's a reason why so many class action lawsuits get filed in one rural county in Mississippi, and it ain't because that's where geniuses go to retire.

Bill, you are way off base. Don't criticize a lawyer for being sleazy...it just goes with the profession. At least he is not another southern govenor!

I agree with Wes and a. a. in that Edwards was sincere in front of the jury...sincere about wanting a third of whatever absurd reward the jury Wes is right about being too damn stupid to understand the case.

John Edwards always fought for the little guy....as long he got a hefty chunk of the multi-million dollar judgement doled out. Someone should do a study of the "lawyer tax" levied on the middle class by corporations, HMOs, and insurance companies in the form of higher costs passed on to the consumer as a result of these ridiculous verdicts. Further, I wonder how many people have lost jobs due to layoffs and cutbacks necessitated by these astronomical jury awards.

Trial lawyers push these dumbass cases because they can make a fortune. If they truly cared about the little guy they represent, they'd take a much smaller cut of the payout. Judges let these frivolous lawsuits proceed because they were usually trial lawyers themselves. Can you say "Tort Reform?"

My understanding is that the rate of cerebral palsy in North Carolina has not decreased, despite a lawsuit-induced quadrupling of caesarian sections.

Ivan -

Once again - it's a mistake for any of you to pass judgement of the merits of a case based upon the little you know about it

It's a "dumbass" case until something happens to you or your family (God forbid - and I mean that) or you have reason to beleive that someone else has harmed your child.

Agreed - the American legal system has it's flaws - but it is also the only avenue that regular people have when they believe they have been wronged by an organization more powerful than themselves...

If you favor tort reform, you are either rich and powerful or you are a fool...

I am ever amazed and appalled at the apparent ignorance of people who are completely unable to understand the subtleties of 'speaking for someone' who is unable to speak for him/her self. A fetal heartbeat tells what is going on with a fetus, but since that fetus cannot speak, Mr. Edwards gives it voice and describes exactly what is happening. And to further continue to speak for that person when the need arises. To insinuate (as that rude, loud-mouthed Ann Coulter does) anything other than that is laughable! Perhaps the naysayers and mudslingers never felt empathy for anyone; perhaps they never imagined what someone else must be feeling in moments of great stress, pain, or sorrow; perhaps they simply don't care!

About the complaint that Bill is neither a doctor nor a scientist, I do not believe that Edwards was a mindreader, especially a fetus' mind! His summation about the brain damaged child were pure theater.
We do not like personal injury lawyers, and have been personally grievously damaged by them. However, we believe that not all (only most) personal injury lawyers are NOT the defenders of the little guy but only out to line their own pockets. Why did Edward NEVER take on a pro bono case? Why did he never take on any case where the potential payout was modest? Why have his own expert witnesses now turned against him? Could it be because they are unable to afford huge malpractice premiums?