The parents of Rachel Corrie, the protester who died at 23 when she attempted to block an Israeli bulldozer from demolishing a Palestinian home, are appealing a federal judge’s decision to throw out their lawsuit against Peoria-based Caterpillar Inc., which manufactured the bulldozer (Mar. 16, 2005). (Gene Johnson, “Rachel Corrie’s family appeals lawsuit against bulldozer-maker”, AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mar. 23). Were courts to invite lawsuits against companies for lawful sales of this sort, they would open up many opportunities for litigants to use tort law as a surrogate sanctions mechanism against foreign governments, even though in our constitutional scheme it is Congress and the executive branch, rather than the courts, which bear the responsibility of weighing the policy considerations in favor of or against such sanctions.
Thanks to Dave Kopel
…for his guestblogging here over the past week. For more of Dave’s writing, check out his main site as well as the Volokh Conspiracy.
“Extra-special education at public expense”
The amazing industry that has sprung up to advance parents’ demands that schools accommodate their “learning-disabled” offspring is an old story around these parts (see here and here, for example). Even so, the San Francisco Chronicle’s recent investigative report can provoke a gasp:
* Even though federal, state and other sources already spend more than $4 billion a year to subsidize the provision of special education in the state of California, school districts in the state still shift more than a billion dollars out of their regular school budgets to pay for accommodation demands that include “private day schools, boarding schools, summer camps, aqua therapy, horseback therapy, travel costs, personal aides” and dolphin therapy.
* Administrators at Woodside High on the Peninsula offered a 15-year-old with learning disabilities and anxiety “daily help from a special education expert” as well as “a laptop computer, extra time for tests — and an advocate to smooth any ripples with teachers. If an anxiety attack came on, he could step out of class.” Not good enough for his parents, who decided to send him to a $30,000/year private school in Maine. Their lawyer demanded that the district pay not only the tuition but also for the whole family’s repeated cross-country travel costs to visit him there.
* Schools routinely buckle under to demands they regard as unreasonable, not only to avoid the expense of litigation but because the law tilts against them; a single procedural misstep in the hugely complicated process can leave them liable for damages and hefty legal fees. Since secret settlements are common, taxpayers may find it hard to grasp the extent of the monetary hemorrhaging.
* “It’s a blank check,” said [Paul] Goldfinger, vice president of School Services. “The system is stacked so that one segment of the population — disabled children — has first call on funding, and the others get whatever’s left.”
Infuriating reading (Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19). (& see Mar. 31 post, where comments continue).
Licensed Handgun Carry Wins in Kansas
Over-riding the Governor’s veto, the Kansas legislature has enacted a “Shall Issue” law for issuing licenses to carry a concealed handgun for lawful protection. Before, Kansas was one of only four states without any provision for issuing concealed handgun licenses. One of the remaining three states, Nebraska, appears poised to enact a similar law, which the Governor has said he will sign.
Kansas is now among the 39 states which have a fair procedure to allow citizens to carry handguns for protection. Along with the three states (Nebraska, Wisconsin, IIllinois) that currently do not issue permits, eight other states issue permits according to the whim of a local official (Hawaii, California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Delaware). A Shall Issue bill is moving through the legislature in Delaware. Rhode Island already has a Shall Issue law, although the law is nullified by administrative practice.
In Wisconsin, a Shall Iissue bill has been vetoed twice, with the vetos sustained by only one or two votes. In every state where Shall Issue proponents have gotten as close as they have in Wisconsin, the state has always eventually enacted a Shall Issue law–although sometimes the process can take a while.
So of the eleven remaining states that are not Shall Issue, two of them (Nebraska and Wisconsin) are nearly certain to change at some point in the future, and there is reasonable possiblity of change in Delaware. All that Rhode Island needs to change is the election of Attorney General who will not interfere with the state law that local goverments must issue carry permits to qualified applicants.
So the number of Shall Issue states could be 43 in the not too distant future. In the seven hold-out states, Shall Issue has passed one body of the legislature at least once in the three largest states: California, New York, and Illinois.
Every year, more and more Shall Issue states create “reciprocity” with each other, so that a person with a permit from her home state can carry her firearm lawfully in a other state while visiting. Currently, a carry permit issued by one state is valid in over half of all states. (See Packing.org for details.)
As the combined total of “no issue” or “whimsical issue” states declines into the single digits, and reciprocity continues to spread, it seems hard to deny that America is concluding that Shall Issue is sensible gun control — one that regulates firearms carrying but does not infringe the right to self-defense.
For more on the Kansas law, see this excellent article in the Wichita Eagle.
Sensible Public Health
Here’s a story about a public health intervention that:
1. Appears to have reduced the rate of sexually transmitted diseases.
2. Especially by encouraging people to have a check-up.
3. Appears to have been fairly inexpensive.
4. Involved no coercion.
The Bay Area Reporter offers a story about a costumed character who promotes sexual disease control (sort of like Smokey the Bear encourages people to prevent forest fires). But the particular costume would scandalize many people. Read the whole article before you make up your own mind.
Major Development in Syria
The opponents of the Assad regime have announced a united front coalition. The expatriate Syrian blogger Ammar Abdulhamid analyzes the coalition, and concludes that, even though the coalition leaders are hardly white knights, the coalition offers the best chance to lead a transition to a post-Assad state that does not degenerate into warlordism.
Housekeeping note: older comments
I’ve had to turn off comments for entries older than seven days, because of the unending flood of comment spam. If you’ve got something important to say about an entry older than that — or if you’re involved in a running conversation that gets cut off when it reaches the deadline — drop Ted or me a line and we’ll consider accommodating you.
Medical wisdom patentable?
According to author Michael Crichton, writing in last Sunday’s New York Times, the statement, “Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins” is not in the public domain; “A corporation has patented that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient’s test results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent.” The Supreme Court will soon have a chance to determine whether this is all as crazy as it sounds, or should remain so (“This Essay Breaks the Law”, Mar. 19). More: “B vitamin case reaches Supreme Court”, AP/USA Today, Mar. 20; Tony Mauro, “Supreme Court Tackles Patentability of Scientific Phenomena”, Legal Times, Mar. 22; Lattman, Mar. 21 and Mar. 22; Point of Law, Mar. 25. Update: Court decides not to resolve case (Tony Mauro, Legal Times, Jun. 23).
Deep pocket files: Michael Boyle v. Ford
Michael Boyle pleaded guilty to a charge of unsafe driving after he plowed into the back of a truck at 60 mph without braking and with his lights off. Unfortunately for Boyle, the under-ride rear impact guard of the truck, installed by Garden State Engine and Equipment, sheared off in the high-speed collision, and his car submarined under the truck, almost decapitating him, and leaving him with brain damage and facial insensation, though he’s able to work in his family business. This was, the New Jersey jury decided, 70% the fault of Ford Motor, which dared to sell an incomplete cab and chassis that complied with all federal regulations, and which could be modified in many different ways, not all of which require identical under-ride guards to comply with applicable regulations. $26.2 million in damages were assessed. Ford was not allowed to introduce Boyle’s guilty plea at trial. (John Petrick, “Faulting Ford and parts maker, jury awards crash victim $26.2M”, North Jersey, Mar. 22) (via Steenson, who made no mention of the contributory negligence in his summary). Unjust $26 million awards are apparently sufficiently “dog-bites-man” that the local press coverage is the only press coverage so far.
Update: Netflix settlement attorney fees likely to be cut
So indicated San Francisco Superior Court Judge Thomas Mellon Jr., who indicated he will not allow fees to reach the $2.53 million previously indicated. Objectors’ fees will be cut as well as the original attorneys, however, which could deter future attempts to intervene in unfair settlements. (Michael Liedtke, AP/Washington Post, Mar. 22; Josh Gerstein, “Judge Seeks To Sweeten Netflix Pact By Cutting Fees to Plaintiff Lawyers”, NY Sun, Mar. 23). We covered the Netflix class action extensively: Nov. 3, Jan. 11, Jan. 21, Feb. 21.