I’ve got a new piece up at City Journal on Tuesday’s sensational Westchester County upset, in which GOP challenger Rob Astorino knocked off Andy Spano, the longtime Democratic incumbent county executive, by a convincing 58-42 percent margin. Taxes were a key issue, but so was the county’s consent to what was billed as a landmark housing-reform settlement in which it agreed to arm-twist affluent towns into accepting low-income housing. Many Westchester residents were wary of the potential consequences — and downright insulted when Spano suggested that to resist the lawsuit further would be to make the generally liberal-leaning county a “symbol of racism”.
The federally brokered settlement is itself of interest far beyond Westchester, if only as the occasion of a truly remarkable rhetorical flourish from an Obama Administration official, HUD deputy secretary Ron Sims: “It’s time to remove zip codes as a factor in the quality of life in America.” It was also hailed at once in some quarters as a model for similar legal action against other suburban jurisdictions considered guilty of not being hospitable enough to low-income housing. The Westchester voter revolt, I argue in the piece, may serve as a signal to local officials elsewhere to fight, rather than roll over, when the social engineers and their lawyers come knocking (cross-posted from Point of Law).
Tagged as:
fair housing,
politics
Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin notices:
A friend points out a little nugget of absurdity and political mendacity in the Pelosi health-care bill. Remember Obama’s effort to try a “test” for tort reform? (We don’t actually need a test, since it has worked to lower medical malpractice coverage and help increase access to doctors in states that have tried it.) Well, Pelosi’s bill has an anti-tort-reform measure. On pages 1431-1433 of the 1990-page spellbinder, there is a financial incentive for states to try “alternative medical liability laws.” But look — you don’t get the incentive if you have a law that would “limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.”
In other words, Congress is providing a financial incentive to uncap damages. Marvelous.
Tagged as:
medical,
Nancy Pelosi,
noneconomic damages,
politics,
tort reform,
trial lawyer earmarks
They ask about whether the GOP should get closer to the Tea Party movement; my answer is that the response of a party to a protest movement should be to coopt its legitimate grievances. More: David Kopel, Volokh.
Tagged as:
politics
The hot blog topic of the moment is over the size of the crowds at yesterday’s “9/12″ Washington rallies critical of the Obama administration’s direction. As we noted back in 2004, U.S. National Park police, who are in charge of the Mall and related public spaces, used to estimate crowd sizes, but when their assessment of attendance at the Million Man March differed from that of march organizers, the organizers threatened to sue. So park police stopped putting out crowd estimates, which now seem to be left to the probably less expert D.C. fire department. Don’t we all feel better informed now?
Tagged as:
politics,
Washington D.C.
Next Tuesday Jacksonville-area Republican voters will vote in a primary to fill a state senate vacancy, with a leading candidate being John Thrasher, who was instrumental in helping the administration of Gov. Jeb Bush steer liability reform through the legislature in 1999. As a result, Thrasher has drawn frenetic attack ads from the state’s personal injury bar and its allies, including a group calling itself Conservative Citizens for Justice, which turns out to be led by a past president of the state’s AAJ affiliate, the Florida Justice Association. [Dan Pero, American Courthouse; Times-Union and more; Jacksonville Observer] In response, Jeb Bush has cut a TV ad for Thrasher pointedly directed at the lawyers. [Miami Herald]
Tagged as:
Florida,
politics
Perhaps the most buzzed-about story while I was on vacation (I’m back now) was the frank acknowledgment by former Democratic Party chairman (and former physician) Howard Dean when asked why liability reform was omitted from the health care redesign. 
From the New York Times “Prescriptions” blog:
The man then asked why tort reform was not part of any health overhaul.
Dr. Dean replied that the more items in a big bill, the more enemies it will have. “The people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else,” Dr. Dean said.
Dr. Dean also said he believed that patients should be able to bring actions against health care professionals, but they should go to arbitration. Then the case could go to trial, he said, but the arbitration verdict should be submitted as evidence. Not much reaction to that either way.
Mr. Moran [Northern Virginia Congressman Jim Moran] then apologized to the man whose identity he had questioned and added his 2 cents about why tort reform was not part of any bill. He said if it were, such a bill would have to go through the judiciary committee, which he said was one of the most partisan in Congress and would never have reported it out.
Commentary: Mark Tapscott/Examiner, Washington Times, Darrin McKinney/ATRA, Dan Pero linking Tiger Joyce/Investors Business Daily, Charles Krauthammer/FoxNews.com via Carter Wood/PoL and NRO “Corner”, Fred Barnes/Weekly Standard.
Relatedly, Philip K. Howard writes on “Stonewalling Legal Reform“, citing a Jon R. Gabel piece in the Times that rebuts a much-touted-by-trial-lawyers Congressional Budget Office report minimizing the likely cost reductions from malpractice reform. From the American Spectator Blog, “Conservative Leaders on Costly Lawsuits and Health Care Reform“. And Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO reiterates his argument that while malpractice reform is a good idea, it shouldn’t be imposed on the national level by the federal government.
More: Jim Lindgren at Volokh Conspiracy skewers an appalling report on health care “myths” which received, but did not deserve, the imprimatur of Indiana University.
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
federalism,
medical malpractice,
politics
Or at least that’s the theme of a panel discussion this week from the lefty Kossack folks, claiming that card check will consign conservatives to “permanent minority” status. [ShopFloor]
Tagged as:
card check,
politics
I was given the opportunity to be on a public-affairs-in-America program on Press TV, the English-language Iranian television network, yesterday. The majority of discussion was on economic issues, but I do get to comment on a number of counterproductive laws Congress seems intent on passing this term. The program is available on line.
Tagged as:
on TV and radio,
politics,
Ted Frank
One can certainly see why ending tax deductions for punitive damages is a superficially appealing idea.
But the main effect will be to increase settlement pressure in cases where there are unjust punitive damages awards. Because settlements can be characterized as “compensatory” and tax-deductible while court-ordered judgments cannot, trial lawyers will be able to use the tax differential to discourage defendants from seeking appellate review. So one cannot expect very much tax revenue from this: “punitive damages” will drop precipitously, but money going to trial lawyers will go up. Moreover, appellate courts will have fewer opportunities to correct bad decisions by trial courts, creating more uncertainty in litigation, which raises litigation expenses because it will be harder to predict outcomes.
Note that taxpayers are not subsidizing punitive damages award deductions by businesses: the income “lost” because a defendant deducted the punitive damages award will be income realized by the plaintiff and his or her attorney. If the deduction is forbidden, the government will be, in effect, double-taxing the same money.
The Obama administration makes much of its claim of being pragmatic, rather than ideological, but this looks like an indirect giveaway to the trial bar rather than a source of government revenue. More: Walter at Point of Law; and my shining mug quoted at the Southeast Texas Record.
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
politics,
punitive damages,
taxes,
Ted Frank,
trial lawyer earmarks
If you’re not reading my other legal site, Point of Law, here’s some of what you’re missing:
Tagged as:
asbestos,
attorneys general,
California,
forum shopping,
international human rights,
international law,
labor unions,
New Mexico,
Pennsylvania,
politics,
prosecution,
whistleblowers
Scott Greenfield:
A buddy of mine who holds elected office has the “hat” theory. As soon as elected officials put on the “hat” of office, it squeezes their heads so tight that they can no longer think. They forget all they knew before, of the wrongs and the remedies, of why somebody decided to vote for them in the first place, and assume the position dictated by the hat. He says they can’t help themselves because it’s the hat.
Tagged as:
politics
In 2007, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously decided Borg-Warner v. Flores, holding that a defendant in an asbestos case was not liable unless its product was a “substantial factor” in causing injury.
But there are now bills in the Texas House and Senate, SB 1123 (recently reported out of Senate committee) and HB 1811, that seek to undo this by defining “substantial factor” to merely mean that a product “contributed to the [plaintiff’s] cumulative exposure”—whether or not other defendants’ products were far more responsible for a plaintiff’s injury. The effect of this rollback would be to return Texas to the role of asbestos magnet, since it could conceivably create indiscriminate liability for hundreds of innocent businesses in any given case. The effect will be very similar to the infamous Lipke rule in Madison County, Illinois that extracted billions of dollars from the innocent this decade.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform has a fact-sheet, as does the Texas Civil Justice League.
Tagged as:
asbestos,
politics,
Texas,
tort reform,
wrong right
