Quantcast

Repealing Michigan’s Drug Shield Law: “A Step In The Wrong Direction”

March 19, 2009

The Detroit News published an important editorial yesterday urging Michigan lawmakers not to repeal the state’s drug shield law – which protects pharmaceutical companies from abusive litigation and which the trial bar has tried for years to reverse.  A state House committee is scheduled to take up the bill today.  Highlights:

Following the law’s adoption “investments in bioscience have grown in Michigan more quickly than in other parts of the country.  According to a 2008 report…Michigan during the prior six years produced academic research valued at $910 million in biosciences.  During that period, 2,225 patents were awarded to researchers in Michigan, primarily in pharmaceuticals.  Additional venture capital investments totaling $269 million, again primarily in pharmaceuticals, were directed toward this state.”

Repealing the law “would tell all prospective investors that Michigan is a very dangerous place in which to do business….In a state with the nation’s highest unemployment rater and an economic base much in need of diversification, this legislation is a step in the wrong direction.”

As the Manhattan Institute reported in an update to its Trial Lawyers, Inc. series, life sciences companies have invested $355 million in R&D in Michigan, supporting 12,000 jobs paying an average of $60,000.  But, the Detroit News points out, “trial lawyers have long chafed at the limitations imposed” by the law – a polite way of saying the state trial bar wants to turn drugmakers into a plaintiffs’ lawyer ATM machine.  They don’t just want to open drugmakers up to future lawsuits, they want to make the repeal retroactive so they can sue going back to 1996.

Here’s one question legislators considering this bill might ask:  How many jobs has the trial bar created in Michigan over the last 13 years?  Or here’s a better one:  How many jobs have trial lawyers destroyed?

Posted by Dan Pero | Filed Under Michigan, Tort Reform, Trial Lawyers | 1 Comment 

Will Michigan Justices Side With Taxpayers?

January 27, 2009

Last fall, Michigan’s Supreme Court voted to close several “convenience” offices used by justices who lived outside the Lansing area.  It was a responsible step toward fiscal sanity and a welcome show of solidarity with Michigan’s long-suffering taxpayers.

After all, taxpayers had just recently sprung for the new $126 million Hall of Justice – an investment of taxpayer resources that ought to be enough to house seven justices in relative luxury.  Plus, the state faces a combined budget deficit of $920 million, according to the most recent figures from Governor Granholm’s office, and closing second offices could save an estimated $500,000 per year.

But Michigan taxpayers shouldn’t count their savings just yet.

The vote was decided by only a 4-3 margin. But Chief Justice Clifford Taylor, who shepherded the measure through the Court, was defeated in his race for re-election, leaving Justice Robert Young to carry on the fight.  Taylor’s replacement, Diane Hathaway, has been mum on how she would vote if the motion comes up for a re-vote.  Her official stance when asked if she was willing to give up her Detroit “convenience” office:  “No comment.”

Leading the charge against fiscal responsibility is Justice Betty Weaver, who is clinging to her $60,000+ per year digs in Traverse City just as ferociously as she tried to keep her taxpayer-funded car last year.

Message for Justice Weaver and Justice Hathaway:  This is not a hard call.

Last year alone, 81,000 Michigan residents lost their jobs and the University of Michigan estimates another 132,000 workers will join the ranks of the unemployed over the next two years.  Thousands of these and others in our state have lost their homes to foreclosure.  Is it really asking so much of our high court judges to give up this perk of office at a time when so many in our state are suffering?

I knew justice was blind, but does it have to be dumb too?

Posted by Dan Pero | Filed Under Michigan | Leave a Comment 

Merry Christmas And Happy Holidays!

December 24, 2008

American Courthouse wishes all our readers a joyous Christmas and a safe, happy New Year.  I’ll be taking a few days off from the blog, but please rejoin us on January 5th.

Posted by Dan Pero | Filed Under Michigan | Leave a Comment 

Weaver The Deceiver

December 24, 2008

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Betty Weaver’s judicial antics and her lack of regard for the hard-pressed taxpayers of Michigan are beginning to be noticed by her employers – namely Michigan voters.   

In a letter to the Traverse City Record-Eagle recently brought to my attention, where Weaver will soon be forced to relinquish her taxpayer subsidized second office, Doug Green takes Weaver to task for her reluctance to surrender her perks:

I was beginning to gain some respect for Justice Elizabeth Weaver’s thoughts about Michigan’s Supreme Court.  This respect was shattered after Weaver’s vote against shutting down her state-paid local office in Traverse City. 

Weaver is obviously more concerned about her physical comfort and convenience than her obligations to taxpayers in the state of Michigan….
 
Weaver challenged the amount of cost savings but obviously fails to recognize the control of government spending depends on avoiding thousands of small costs whether it be $400,000 or $1.
   
Weaver’s vote also begs the question as to the validity of her judicial decisions.  Weaver has also publicly challenged the behavior of certain fellow judges.  It appears that Weaver might be just another whiner when her views are not accepted.
   


My previous posts on Weaver’s perk-grubbing can be read here
.   

Posted by Dan Pero | Filed Under Michigan | Leave a Comment 

Is The Right To Vote Less Important Than The 1st Amendment?

December 17, 2008

Our gavel grabbing friends over at Justice at Stake have a post on a report issued at FactCheck.org that “dissects judicial mudslinging” in the recent Michigan Supreme Court race, among others.  Viveca Novak of the Annenberg Political Fact Check found the ads on both sides uncivil, misleading, inaccurate and unproven.

Justice at Stake is absolutely right:  State judicial races have become too partisan, too expensive and too negative.  The question is, what should we do about it?  If Justice at Stake proposed that a committee of lawyers be appointed to select which ads should be permitted to go on the air, without any public explanation for its decisions, editorial boards across the country would recoil in horror at this breach of the First Amendment.  But when the group suggests a committee of lawyers be appointed to select which judges should be permitted to sit on the bench, without any public explanation for its decisions, many organs of elite opinion cheer them on.  Go figure.

Posted by Dan Pero | Filed Under Justice at Stake, Michigan | Leave a Comment 

Standing Up For Michigan Taxpayers

November 19, 2008

My post from last week on the plan by Michigan’s Supreme Court to close several satellite offices – which both the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press say would save suffering Michigan taxpayers $400,000 per year – seems to have hit a nerve.  One reader all but called me a traitor to my party for criticizing Justice Betty Weaver’s vote to keep her $60,000+ per year digs in Traverse City.

Well, here at American Courthouse we call ‘em like we see ‘em – and Republican or not, Justice Betty Weaver has become an embarrassment to the court who is far more committed to protecting the perks and privileges of her office than helping long-suffering Michigan taxpayers or the court she serves.

For those readers unfamiliar with Justice Weaver’s antics, a little history may be in order. Ms. Weaver was first elected in 1994 and served as Chief Justice from 1998 to 1999 – until the court voted 6-1 to remove her. (She alone was steadfast in support of herself remaining Chief.) It was during her tenure as Chief that the Michigan Supreme Court ranked the worst in America, according to a University of Chicago study, not during the tenure of Chief Justice Taylor, as was erroneously reported in the recent campaign.

In 2005, Justice Weaver announced her resignation:  “I intend to put my money where my mouth is, and step down in October 2005, after more than 10 years on the Supreme Court.”  She then rescinded her resignation and pledged to fight – believe it or not – for term limits.  Considering Justice Weaver has been hunkered down on the bench for 14 years, it’s hard to take seriously her claim that justices should be limited to one eight-year term.

Irony aside, Justice Weaver’s main goal in remaining on the court seems to be making the lives of her fellow justices miserable.  As Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson put it in one 2007 column:

If you ran into Betty Weaver on a street corner and didn’t know she was a Michigan Supreme Court Justice, you might mistake her for a bag lady….Weaver can, in her most distracted moments, leave casual observers with the impression that she has temporarily lost her moorings in time and space.  So it is tempting for her embarrassed colleagues on the state’s highest court to dismiss Weaver’s latest criticism of that august institution as the ravings of a lunatic.

Justice Weaver’s fight to keep her Traverse City office is reminiscent of her blowup last year when the rest of her colleagues on the court gave up their taxpayer-funded state cars without complaint.  If she really believes Michigan Supreme Court Justices should only serve for 8 years she should lead by example and retire when her term is up in 2010 – if not sooner.

Posted by Dan Pero | Filed Under Michigan | Leave a Comment 

Michigan High Court Votes To Close Offices

November 14, 2008

The Detroit Free Press reports today that Michigan’s Supreme Court voted yesterday to close several satellite offices used by justices – saving hard-hit Michigan taxpayers an estimated $400,000 per year.  You’d think such a modest cost-cutting measure would win unanimous support given Michigan’s severe budget crisis – especially considering that Michigan taxpayers footed the bill for the plush, new $88 million Hall of Justice that houses the Court in Lansing.

But you’d be wrong.

At a time when many Michigan residents are losing their homes, three Justices – including Betty Weaver – voted to keep their second offices.  Justice Weaver has a history of fighting to keep her perks and privileges; she even whined about giving up her taxpayer-funded state car.

Any savings that might trickle down to the taxpayers might be short-lived, however.  The 4-3 decision may well be reversed early next year when Diane Hathaway takes the seat of Clifford Taylor after defeating him in the recent election.  Justice Weaver likes to pose as the great defender of the “little guy” – except, it seems, when it comes to lightening the load on his/her wallet.  She runs on the campaign slogan:  “Weaver.  We Need Her.”  As far as Michigan taxpayers are concerned, it ought to be:  Weaver.  Who Needs Her.

Posted by Dan Pero | Filed Under Michigan | 4 Comments 

Will New Legal Climate Be A Blow To Michigan’s Struggling Economy?

November 10, 2008

Businesses operating in Michigan’s struggling economy may soon face a new threat:  A legal climate that will be far more hostile to business investment and far more likely to overturn legal reforms that have protected businesses from frivolous litigation.

Brian Dickerson speculates today in the Detroit Free Press that Diane Hathaway’s upset of Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor “could put a Democrat in the chief justice’s seat … for the first time in a decade.”  At the same time, Ms. Hathaway’s election will give new momentum to proposed court rules that would make it easier for trial lawyers to block rule-of-law judges from hearing their cases.

Michigan’s trial lawyer lobby has been fighting for years to overturn key legal reform measures, and the new court will likely look more favorably on this campaign.  Some of the reforms at risk include laws that provide for reasonable limits on tort damages and prevent trial lawyers from charging exorbitant contingency fees.

The trial bar will also renew its push to repeal Michigan’s landmark “FDA defense” law, which protects companies that manufacture drugs that have been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration from abusive lawsuits.  As the Manhattan Institute pointed out in a Trial Lawyers, Inc. update, the biotech/pharmaceutical industry has been one of the few bright spots in Michigan’s dismal economy.  Since the “FDA defense” law was adopted, “life-sciences companies have invested $355 million on research and development in Michigan” – supporting 12,000 jobs in the state paying an average of more than $60,000.

With Diane Hathaway taking Clifford Taylor’s seat, Michigan’s trial bar will enjoy more power on the high court than it has had in years.  If Trial Lawyers, Inc. keeps gaining ground it may soon be the only industry in Michigan that’s growing.

Posted by Dan Pero | Filed Under Michigan, Tort Reform, Trial Lawyers | Leave a Comment 

Trial Lawyer Lobby Scores Several Big Victories — But Signs Of Hope In A Tough Election Year

November 5, 2008

Democratic state Supreme Court candidates – backed by the money and influence of the powerful trial lawyer lobby – scored several victories last night that could result in the rollback of important legal reform legislation and lead to a more lawsuit-friendly, anti-business environment.  The trial bar also strengthened its grip on the judicial selection process in Kansas and Missouri.  Yet rule-of-law judicial candidate also won races in many key states, providing signs of hope in an otherwise tough election cycle.

A 2008 election roundup:

Michigan:  A “scathing” ad campaign financed by the Michigan Democratic Party along with Senator Obama’s landslide in the state helped Diane Hathaway upset Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor.  Ms. Hathaway’s victory will weaken the current rule-of-law majority on the court and worsen the business climate in Michigan’s already devastated economy.

Mississippi:  Rule-of-law candidates captured three of the four Mississippi Supreme Court seats up for grabs.  Although Chief Justice Jim Smith was upset by challenger Jim Kitchens, business-backed challengers Bubba Pierce and David Chandler defeated incumbents Oliver Dias, Jr. and Chuck Easley.  Meanwhile, rule-of-law Justice Ann Hannaford Lamar beat back her challenger to retain her seat on Mississippi’s high court.  The result should be a fairer, more predictable legal environment, which Gov. Haley Barbour believes is critical to attracting investment and jobs to Mississippi.

Louisiana:  Greg Guidry won a pivotal seat on the state Supreme Court – a victory that is expected to help a rule-of-law majority take control of the high court.

Alabama:  Republican Greg Shaw squeaked to victory over Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur in the race to fill the seat of retiring Republican Harold See.  The Alabama Supreme Court will retain an 8-1 Republican majority.

“Merit” Selection:  Residents of Johnson County, KS voted down a ballot initiative that would have restored the right to vote for county judges and ended the current “merit” selection process.  In Greene County, MO, voters narrowly (by about 4,000 votes) approved an initiative to adopt “merit” selection, which has been used by all three Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court in Missouri since 1945.

Wisconsin:  Back in April, Wisconsin voters ousted Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler – who was appointed by a Democratic governor only after decisively losing his own bid for election and who promptly shifted the high court sharply toward the trial lawyer agenda.

All in all, the 2008 elections provide strong evidence that American voters support judicial candidates that will exercise judicial restraint by interpreting the law, rather than legislating from the bench.  But as we saw in Michigan, the trial bar and supporters of an activist judiciary are both financially and philosophically committed to fighting this battle out state by state, race by race.  The trial bar and its allies are not afraid to wage tough, nasty, expensive campaigns to shift the courts in their ideological direction.  If the legal reform community wants to hold onto the gains we’ve made and even extend them, we must have that same level of commitment.

Posted by Dan Pero | Filed Under Alabama, Judicial Elections, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, State Battlegrounds, Trial Lawyers, Wisconsin | 1 Comment 

Who’s Watching The “Watchdogs”?

November 3, 2008

Justice at Stake is out with a press release decrying the “orgy of negativity” the group believes has turned the Michigan Supreme Court campaign between Chief Justice Clifford Taylor and challenger Diane Hathaway into “the nation’s dirtiest.” (full disclosure:  my wife, Colleen, is managing Chief Justice Taylor’s campaign)  The group’s executive director, Bert Brandenburg, says the Michigan race represents an attempt by “special interests, political parties and an emerging class of ‘superdonors’ to pack courts with judges to their liking.”

Of course, this charge would have more credibility if it weren’t made by a group bankrolled by a “superdonor” (hedge fund billionaire George Soros) committed to turning the judicial selection process over to a single “special interest” (lawyers) in order to “pack the courts with judges to their liking” (activists who will do the bidding of the trial bar but have trouble getting elected by the people).   But Justice at Stake has a point.

Yes, campaigns at all levels of government have gotten too expensive and too negative.  By Justice at Stake’s estimations, for example, Barack Obama raises almost as much in a single month as every candidate for state Supreme Court has raised in the past eight years.  Surely Senator Obama has turned the quest for the presidency into a “financial arms race” with a campaign “defined by runaway spending” – to use Justice at Stake’s words.  Despite this fact, no one would dare suggest that Americans be deprived of their right to vote for Senator Obama tomorrow or that the job could better be handled by a committee dominated by special interests.  Why should we listen to Justice at Stake when they want to do precisely the same thing with our right to vote for state judges?

You see, the real target here is not campaign spending or even negative ads – it’s elections themselves.  While Justice at Stake likes to pose as a nonpartisan judicial watchdog, the group is actually waging a highly-coordinated, well-financed campaign to end democratic judicial elections in states across America and impose “merit” selection schemes – where a small tribunal controlled by lawyers meets in secret to decide who should sit on the bench.

In my view, it’s not “Justice” at stake, but Accountability that’s at stake.

In the old days, “watchdog” groups protected the people from the powerful by shining the light of public scrutiny on government actions. How ironic – and disturbing – that a self-styled “watchdog” is now dedicated to ending public scrutiny over one-third of our state governments.

Posted by Dan Pero | Filed Under Judicial Elections, Justice at Stake, Michigan, State Battlegrounds | Leave a Comment 

« Previous Page — Next Page »