Talk:Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

POV tag[edit]

I have added the POV tag because of this reversion of my NPOV edit made without justification or explanation. This is the second article of mine that Jance/Jgwlaw has reverted for purely harassing reasons; see also the Fred Baron article[1] and the discussion here. -- TedFrank 08:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested corrections: Add a balancing sentence for this sentence: "Business groups and tort reform supporters had lobbied for the legislation, arguing that it was needed to prevent class-action lawsuit abuse." - It needs to say what the bill's opponents said as in a news article. Also, you could say instead of "The Act accomplished two key goals of tort reform advocates" that the act was intended to accomplish these goals.199.245.32.11 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any objections if I add links to a piece I wrote on the subject?[2] -- TedFrank 06:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is balanced now (though not perfect) and the NPOV tag should be removed. I don't object to Ted Frank adding links to one of his articles on the subject in the further reading section. 69.43.128.132 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this sentence ambiguous: "Critics argue that the expansion of federal jurisdiction comes at the expense of state's rights and federalism, something Republicans have historically protested . . . " I assume the intended meaning is that Republicans have historically protested the "expansion of federal jurisdiction" at "the expense of state's rights and federalism." Instead, it seems to say that Republicans have historically protested "state's rights and federalism." I don't have time to come up with a quick fix. Any suggestions? Travis325 (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis325 (talkcontribs) 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it ambiguous. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that passage implies what you think it does. I had no trouble immediately understanding what that sentence meant. The sentence is about the expansion of federal jurisdiction, and therefore the word "something" (that Republicans have historically protested) refers to that expansion of federal jurisdiction. The fact that this sentence has remained in the article unchanged for five years seems to underscore my point, but if other readers agree with Travis325 and find it ambiguous, I suppose the word "something" could be replaced with "a result that", which should remove all perceived ambiguity. Captain Quirk (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Needs section on notable SCOTUS CAFA cases[edit]

This article is rated "low-importance," which surprises me. There have been several important SCOTUS cases concerning CAFA in the last year or so; most recently, SCOTUS today reversed the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that a class representative cannot defeat CAFA's federal-court jurisdiction by stipulating to less than $5 million in damages (because his stipulation does not bind the rest of the putative class). Here is the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1450_9olb.pdf. Here is the SCOTUSblog page on the case: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1450_9olb.pdf. I think I will attempt to create a page for the case before contributing to a new section on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papillonderecherche (talkcontribs) 14:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)