Louisianans Pushing for Tort Reform to Enhance Economic Competitiveness
January 26, 2011
A group called the Coalition for Common Sense is pushing for tort reform in Louisiana as part of an effort to enhance the state’s economic competitiveness. The Coalition is backed by most Louisiana business organizations and many tort reform advocates (such as the American Justice Partnership which I run). Louisiana typically ranks near the bottom when it comes to how hospitable the litigation climate is to business. Interestingly, Coalition supporters note that Mississippi and Texas have recently enacted wide-ranging legal reforms, providing a boost to their economies at the expense of Louisiana. Smart companies (and political leaders) are coming to recognize that when it comes to attracting business and creating jobs, a state’s legal environment is every bit as important as a favorable tax system, good schools and modern infrastructure.
Recusal Campaign is about Power not Justice
January 25, 2011
Pushing for phony recusal “reform” has developed into an increasingly popular strategy for left-leaning groups trying to marginalize conservative judges. Last week, the liberal activist group Common Cause asked the Justice Department to investigate whether U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused themselves from last year’s Citizens United case. What’s the rationale? Apparently because Justices Scalia and Thomas spoke at Federalist Society events hosted by Charles Koch, whose foundation is the bête noir of the professional Left.
What skullduggery did Scalia and Thomas engage in at these events? Well, Justice Thomas gave a speech about his moving memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, while Justice Scalia regaled the audience with his views on international law. And what payoff did each speaker receive for his appearance – a bag of cash from Charles Koch, perhaps? No, apparently just reimbursement from the Federalist Society for the cost of the airline ticket and hotel room. Sure sounds like proof that Justice Scalia and Thomas tilted their Citizens United decision to benefit the Koch Foundation to me! Yeah, it must have been that – not their two-decade record of opposing congressional efforts to silence campaign speech that members of Congress don’t like.
The real offense, of course, is that Justices Scalia and Thomas did not side with Common Cause in its view that First Amendment rights don’t apply to corporations or unions. Since they can’t sideline a justice for that, they cook up demands for recusal “reform” so they can structure the court in specific cases to suit their own ideological preferences.
The case is useful, however, because it highlights an emerging strategy of anti-business, pro-trial bar efforts — like the George Soros-financed $45 million campaign to reshape state courts. The first step is to try to keep conservative judges off the courts by taking judicial selection decisions away from ordinary citizens and handing them over to “merit” boards stacked with legal special interests. The second step is to gag any conservative judge who happens to slip by with phony recusal demands. In each instance, the goal is not to produce fairer, more accountable courts, but to impose the Left’s agenda on unwilling voters.
What a Difference an Election Makes
January 25, 2011
On January 4, 2011, the day after he took office, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker called on the legislature to pass legal reform legislation to create a more “job friendly” environment in the state. (Hat tip: Shopfloor) Last week, the Wisconsin Legislature sent him a bill that will make Wisconsin a better place to do business and create jobs. As James Buchen of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business group, put it:
“With other states raising taxes and passing other anti-business legislation, Wisconsin can stand apart and encourage businesses to create jobs.”
The bill would curb junk science in state courtrooms, eliminate the “risk contribution” theory, which allows corporate defendants to be sued even if their product caused no harm, and establish a reasonable limit on punitive damages.
Lifting the Rock on the “Merit” Selection Campaign
January 25, 2011
“Merit” selection proponents like to pretend that the entire “merit” selection campaign just bubbled up from the grass roots over citizen concern about judicial independence – a line the gullible press typically laps up. Gary Marx demolishes that farce in a two-part post on NRO’s Bench Memos.
As Marx demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt, “merit” selection is not some organic, grassroots uprising, but a vehicle for placing trial bar-connected, left-leaning judges on state courts. In Iowa, Marx points out that three of the state Supreme Court’s current members are former members of the Iowa Trial Lawyers Association, while a fourth justice tied to the trial lawyer lobby was thrown out by voters in November.
Voters are starting to figure out the game. That’s why, as Marx points out, states such as Iowa, Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma and even Missouri (“merit” selection’s birthplace) are debating whether to amend “merit” selection to reduce the influence of special interest groups or scrap it altogether.
The Arrogance of the “Merit” Selection Crowd
January 25, 2011
Newly elected Florida Governor Rick Scott is getting a lesson in who really wields political power in the Sunshine State. Earlier this month, Scott asked the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission to send him more than the four names it originally submitted to fill a judicial vacancy. As the state’s highest elected official, Scott presumably felt the wishes of the people of Florida, expressed through their elected leaders, ought to be taken into account when it comes to selecting their public servants on the bench. The Judicial Nominating Commission disagreed, responding with … well, basically with the middle finger.
According to news reports, “the nine-member commission met, considered the governor’s request and then sent him back the same list of four nominees it approved initially.”
Telling the governor to kiss off is getting to be something of a habit for the unelected, unaccountable Judicial Nominating Commission. A few years back, former Governor Charlie Crist also rejected the initial slate and asked the Commission to send additional nominees. The Commission refused, so the Supreme Court – chosen by the Commission of course – ruled that the governor cannot refuse to choose from the Commission’s hand-picked list. All part of the shockingly arrogant campaign to keep judicial selection a clubby, insiders, lawyers-only game, with no input from the people or the elected representatives.
Merit Selection Supporter Challenges Tennessee Judge’s “Constitutional Right” to Contribute to Political Candidates
January 19, 2011
Shira Goodman over at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts (part of the $45 million “merit” selection campaign bankrolled by George Soros) was kind enough to link to my post about the recent uproar over political contributions by Tennessee judges.
As I wrote yesterday, Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Gary Wade defends his donations by arguing he has a “constitutional right” to support any candidate he wants.
Goodman is having none of it, quickly dispensing with Justice Wade’s quaint notion that the First Amendment (i.e. the right to free speech in the form of campaign contributions) applies to sitting judges. “Judges should of course have the right to vote,” Goodman allows, “…but judges do give up certain rights when they take the bench – this should include overt political or financial support in elections.”
More Perception Problems in Tennessee
January 18, 2011
Tennessee judges have contributed more than $200,000 to political candidates over the past few election cycles. Some of these judicial contributions have targeted lawmakers trying to change the state’s “merit” selection system in order to give more power over judicial appointments to ordinary citizens, rather than legal special interests. A perception problem? Not according to Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Gary Wade, who tried to unseat “merit” selection opponent Senator Mike Bell:
“Contributing to campaigns from time to time doesn’t mean that I cannot and most jurists cannot compartmentalize those issues. All of us have a constitutional right to support any candidate of our choice, and yet when I put on the black robe, partisan politics and friendships play no role.”
Let me get this straight. If Justice Wade makes a campaign contribution, he can just “compartmentalize” it and still render fair rulings. But if he accepts a contribution, suddenly he’s compromised and unable to set aside bias?
Justice Wade is right about his “constitutional right” to donate to the candidate of his choice. But he’s using that “right” to try to block the people of his state from exercising a no less important “right” guaranteed by Tennessee’s Constitution – the right to pick the judges who serve them.
Fortunately for Tennessee voters, Justice Wade’s campaign contributions didn’t keep Mike Bell from reaching the Senate. In fact, he’s been appointed to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he plans to introduce legislation that would take the “right” to choose judges away from powerful lawyers-only group and return it to the people.
Tennessee Justices Caught with Their Hands in the Political Cookie Jar
January 14, 2011
“Merit” selection is supposed to keep politics out of the courtroom, right? At least that’s the main talking point of the $45 million campaign to reshape America’s courts. So why were two Tennessee Supreme Court justices writing checks to try to defeat Senator Mike Bell? Apparently because they disagreed with his belief that ordinary citizens should have some say over who sits on the bench.
As a House member, Senator Bell was sharply critical of the state’s “merit” selection system. Justices Sharon Lee and Gary Wade didn’t want to see such a prominent critic of the system that brought them their jobs elevated to the Senate, so they each contributed $500 to Bell’s primary opponent. As an understandably peeved Senator Bell put it, judges:
“kind of like to sit on their lofty perches and claim they are above politics, but they’re just as political as anyone else when it comes to protecting their own jobs.”
Prominent Tennessee attorney and “merit” selection supporter Max Bahner says that “every private citizen has the right to make a contribution.” He’s correct of course. But don’t these contributions create the same “perception problem” that the “merit” selection crowd constantly condemns when the rest of us exercise that same right? Why is there a perception that it’s impossible for judges to remain fair and impartial if they accept a campaign contribution, but no reasonable concern about bias is they make a contribution themselves?
A Victory for the Rule of Law in Michigan
January 11, 2011
Michigan voters took a decisive turn in November, returning a rule of law majority to the Supreme Court and elected Rick Snyder as governor to end the disastrous anti-business, pro-trial bar experiment of the Granholm era. Yesterday, their choice began paying dividends when Governor Snyder appointed Michigan Appeals Court Judge Brian Zahra to fill the seat of departing Justice Maura Corrigan.
In accepting the appointment, Zhara pledged to follow “the rule of law” and respect “the principles of limited government laid out in our state and federal constitutions.” Governor Snyder’s decision will ensure that Michigan’s highest court is guided by the rule of law, not the rule of trial lawyers, and restore fairness and predictability to the state’s legal system – a critical step toward promoting job creation.
Great pick Governor.
Corrections Department: If It Looks Like a Duck…
January 11, 2011
In my recent Detroit News oped, I wrote that the Justice Kelly’s task force was being underwritten by the State Bar of Michigan. I was wrong. Actually, it’s being underwritten by the State Bar of Michigan Foundation. Both are run by lawyers; both are funded by lawyers; both share the same address. But they have different boards. In my view, a distinction without a difference. My thanks to Janet Welch, Executive Director of the State Bar of Michigan, for pointing out the error.
Quack, quack.