<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>NewsTrust - Law - Most Recent Stories: News</title>
    <copyright>Copyright (c) 2008 NewsTrust</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:02:35 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    
    <link>http://newstrust.net/topics/law/top_stories/news?timespan=7</link>
    <description>NewsTrust helps people find good journalism online. We rate the news based on quality, not just popularity. Our social news network features top-rated stories from hundreds of mainstream and independent sources. Find out more at http://newstrust.net/</description>
    <item>
      <title>Is It Time for Malpractice Reform?</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/432753</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/432753</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/sources/american_prospect&quot;&gt;American Prospect&lt;/a&gt; - By Joanne Kenen - Nov. 20 (News Analysis) - Year after year, Republicans try to pass legislation that would limit medical malpractice awards. Fix the tort system, they argue, and we fix rising health-care costs. And year after year, Democrats resist placing arbitrary caps on awards to people who may have suffered from an egregious medical error. The fight plays out like a predictable old Western -- good guys versus bad guys. Depending on your politics, the villain is either the greedy doctor or the greedy trial lawyer.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/432753&quot;&gt;3.7 average&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/432753&quot;&gt;7&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/432753&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Health Care</category>
      <category>Law</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Legislation to Limit Use of State Secrets Privilege an Uphill Battle</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/427963</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/427963</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/sources/truthout&quot;&gt;TruthOut&lt;/a&gt; - By William Fisher - Nov. 19 (Special Report) - The problems President Obama will likely face in this area may stem from his pledges - both during the campaign and currently - that he would make open government and transparency the hallmarks of his administration. But, in court cases, his lawyers have followed paths identical to those used by George W. Bush's Justice Department. This approach to secrecy, manifested in his use of the state secrets doctrine, has triggered widespread disappointment among the progressive wing of his supporters.

These supporters are pushing hard for passage of legislation winding its way through Congress that would impose stricter limits on use of the privilege.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/427963&quot;&gt;4.1 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/427963&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/427963&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>Obama Administration</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Senators Press Holder to Declassify Key Facts about Patriot Act</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/430235</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/430235</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;Salem-News.com - Nov. 19 (News Report) - We believe that the information we referenced in those paragraphs &#8211; specifically about the use of section 215 &#8211; is essential to understanding the full scope of the PATRIOT Act, which is about to be debated in Congress. As we said in June, if you have concerns about declassifying the specific language contained in our letter, we ask that you work with us to find language that conveys enough information to allow for an informed public debate on the PATRIOT Act&#8217;s reauthorization&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/430235&quot;&gt;3.9 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/430235&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/430235&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Congress</category>
      <category>U.S. Constitution</category>
      <category>U.S. Senate</category>
      <category>Law</category>
      <category>Law Enforcement</category>
      <category>Freedom of Speech</category>
      <category>Human Rights</category>
      <category>Terrorism</category>
      <category>War</category>
      <category>Civil Liberties</category>
      <category>Domestic Spying</category>
      <category>FBI</category>
      <category>National Security</category>
      <category>Obama Administration</category>
      <category>Privacy</category>
      <category>Congressional Oversight</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
