It's a showcase in whether Merck can show that they acted in a morally correct way and that they did not put profits over people's safety.

The president seems to do what is politically expedient, versus what is morally correct. Therefore, if we make it politically expedient for him to do the moral thing, that's what he'll do.

There are problems with the current product liability system, but under-deterrence is not one of them.

Many courts in other counties would toss this case because of the standard that no reasonable juror could find for the plaintiff in this situation. It's been our experience that many of the courts in the Rio Grande Valley are very, very friendly to plaintiffs' counsel and let cases go forward.

The president is to be commended for going to a place where too much excess liability has dramatically affected how people live because they can't get access to medicine.

For most people it didn't become terrorism until the second building was hit. That's when it was clear the first situation was no accident.