You Can’t Make This Stuff Up…
October 13, 2010
Golfer Lana Lawless, who underwent a sex change operation five years ago, is suing the LPGA because its events are open only to competitors who are “female at birth.” Lawless is also suing Long Drivers of America for “unspecified damages” because the group won’t let her compete in its long driving competition.
How the Trial Lawyer-Litigation Complex is Killing the American Spirit
October 11, 2010
Philip K. Howard has a gem of a piece outlining how the Trial Lawyer-Litigation Complex is destroying the American spirit of entrepreneurship, individual opportunity and civic responsibility. A few highlights:
“The sheer volume of law suffocates innovative instincts, while distrust of lawsuits discourages ordinary human choices. Why take a chance on the eager young person applying for a job when, if it doesn’t work out, you might get sued for discrimination? Why take the risk of expanding production in another state that requires duplicating legal risks and overhead? Why bother to start a business at all?”
“Over the generations, the American spirit of individual opportunity has been manifested not only in new businesses, but in the civic and public life as well – in the culture of barn-raisings and boy scouts and cake sales. These deep roots of our culture … have also atrophied before our eyes. Hardly any social interaction is free of legal risk.”
“America can’t move forward until it cleans out this legal swamp. The accretion of law has made democracy inert – a sludge heap of programs and entitlements swarming with special interests – while also slowly suffocating the American spirit.”
DC Residents Socked with Huge Litigation Tab
October 11, 2010
Front page story in today’s Washington Post: “DC’s Other Thriving Industry: Lawsuits…City Paid $50 million from 2007 to 2009 to settle range of complaints out of court.” Full article here.
The Stakes in Michigan
October 8, 2010
Professor Gary Wolfram of Hillsdale College has a great piece in today’s Detroit News on the dangers of an activist judiciary. Rallying Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek and Founder James Madison to the cause, Wolfram rightly asserts that “if the laws are so unpredictable that no one who knows what the law is today can know what it will be tomorrow, then we have lost an important part of our democratic society.”
Wolfram continues:
“The Michigan Supreme Court race is important because it is really a decision about whether or not Michigan will have the Rule of Law….The Republican candidates, Bob Young and Mary Beth Kelly, have strong records of standing for the Rule of Law. Both believe that the role of the Supreme Court is to protect the constitution, not to alter or amend it.”
Calling out the negative economic consequences of an activist judiciary, Wolfram points out:
“Since the 2008 election … the [new] court majority has moved away from the certainty that allows our market system to operate. The current court has overturned more than a dozen legal precedents in less than two years. These decisions have created an environment where no one knows how the law will be interpreted. This is great for trial lawyers, who must be hired in order to battle for clients on both sides of the issues, but adds to the economic woes of the state. There are 50 others states and the rest of the world in which to start or expand a business and the makeup of the court will have a huge effect on where new business activity occurs.”
Both Young and Kelly believe:
“The constitution is not to be reinterpreted and the laws rewritten at every turn. Whether Michigan emerges from double digit unemployment and falling personal income depends to a good extent on the makeup of the 2011 State Supreme Court, which in turn depends on who is elected on November 2.”
Justice Young, by the way, was recently named the first recipient of the American Justice Partnership’s “Guardian of Justice” award.
Tortured Logic in Minnesota
October 8, 2010
An editorial in the St. Cloud Times (MN) offers up some tortured logic in support of adopting “merit” selection in Minnesota (hat tip to Leagle). The Times acknowledges that the influence of campaign cash isn’t a problem in the state, but warns that unless Minnesota adopts “merit” selection it risks turning judicial elections into a “battle of special-interest war chests.” As an example of the potential evil that awaits Minnesotans if they don’t give up their democratic right to choose judges themselves, the Times points the finger at … Iowa.
Last time I checked, Iowa used “merit” selection.
Iowa Reveals the Crumbling Arguments Behind “Merit” Selection
October 6, 2010
The retention elections of three Iowa Supreme Court justices have become a fascinating example not just of how determined voters are to remove judges that voters believe are activists and have exceed their authority, but also of how quickly the arguments behind “merit” selection crumble when confronted by citizens determined to hold their public servants on the bench accountable.
Crumbling Argument 1: “Merit” selection takes the politics out of judicial selection.
So far in Iowa, at least four groups (two pro-removal and two anti-removal) are fighting it out to win voters over to their cause – complete with events, ads and all the trappings of modern political campaigns. Sure sounds like politics to me. Yesterday, according to a Des Moines Register report, Malia Reddick of the American Judicature Society (another pro-“merit” selection group on the George Soros dole) admitted the obvious: “merit selection does not remove politics and special interest[s] from the process…”
Crumbling Argument 2: “Merit” selection eliminates special interest influence.
Because of the spotlight on these retention elections, Iowans are finally learning the truth about who really controls judicial selection in the state. A group called Iowans for Fair and Impartial Courts has been sponsoring events warning of dire consequences if voters remove any of the justices up for retention. According to the Register, the group is “backed by the state bar association.” Interesting.
Even more interesting: In Iowa, members of the state bar get to decide who gets to sit on the judicial nominating commission. In other words, a special interest (the Iowa Bar) is fighting to maintain its current power to hand-pick some of Iowa’s most powerful public servants.
Crumbling Argument 3: “Merit” selection want voters to have a say in who sits on the court.
As I’ve detailed in previous posts, “merit” selection proponents are only willing to stand up for retention elections if voters rubber stamp the judges that have been chosen for them.
The battle in Iowa has revealed the truth behind “merit” selection: The entire system is a tool to keep lawyer-dominated special interests in control of our courts and to prevent citizens from holding their judges accountable when they act like legislators.
Voters Just Saying “No” In Iowa
October 5, 2010
A “stunning” new poll by the Des Moines Register demonstrates that Iowans are fed up over judges they believe to be arrogant, activist, and unaccountable. Three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn the state’s traditional marriage statute and force Iowa to recognize gay marriages are in danger of losing their seats in this year’s retention elections. According to the Register poll, 44 percent of Iowans plan to vote “yes” on retention, while 40 percent say they will vote “no” – a result within the poll’s margin of error.
“These poll numbers are stunning,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School. “It is virtually unheard-of for a judge to lose a retention race.” Since Iowa adopted “merit” selection nearly 50 years ago, no Supreme Court justice has ever lost a seat.
In Iowa, as in other “merit” selection states, judges are chosen by a committee controlled by legal special interests. Proponents of this system say the people still have a voice because judges periodically have to stand for retention elections. Yet the minute citizens look like they might actually vote down a judge, the “merit” selection crowd cries foul and warns of dark threats to judicial independence.
Everyone agrees judges should be independent, but they must also be accountable when they stray beyond their appropriate roles and insert themselves into questions that are the proper domain of elected legislatures. Which raises an interesting question for the “merit” cabal … If voters are never allowed to vote “no”, what’s the point of having a retention election anyway?