Why oh why would those self-professed die-hard conservatives who tout “states rights” over big federal government somehow lose their way and try to push federal tort reform in the form of limits on what juries can award to medical malpractice victims? Surely, it can’t be to protect against frivolous lawsuits, as it is warped rationale, at best, to pass a law that limits what a jury can award to catastrophically injured victims to stop lawsuits that have no merit. Surely, even those blood thirsty conservatives would agree with this: a limit on the amount of damages to be awarded will only hurt those who have good cases and who have been catastrophically injured by medical malpractice. No one can seriously argue against this. So, why the call from the conservative republicans to abandon one of the most basic tenets of conservative republicanism and force limits on the amount of monies that state juries can award to those severely injured victims of medical malpractice. Listen to a few of the scholars and legal minds who have looked into the apparent conflict below:

George Mason University Law Professor Ilya Somin has said, ”Hopefully, at least some Republican conservatives will begin to see that you can’t advocate strict limits on federal power with one hand while trying to impose sweeping federal control over state tort law with the other.”

Georgetown University Law Professor Randy Barnett says, “Senate Republicans are claiming that Congress has power over the judiciary of the states because state courts are an activity that ‘affect[s] commerce.’ With friends like these, constitutional federalism does not need enemies. Can we coin a new pejorative, FINO: ‘Federalists in Name Only’?”