The CJAC has an idea for the Harvard School of Public Health: rather than make an embarrassing decision to give a “Health Award” to the facile celebrity, why not give the award to Norma Zager, the Beverly Hills Courier reporter who exposed Erin Brockovich’s quackery? (May Habib, “Brockovich Awarded SPH’s Highest Honor”, Harvard Crimson, Oct. 19; Jessica Heslam, “Lawyer group protests award for `Erin Brockovich'”, Boston Herald, Oct. 18). Earlier coverage: Oct. 6 and especially Sep. 30 and links therein.
Haberman on Port Authority verdict
New York Times columnist Clyde Haberman, on a jury’s determination last week (Oct. 27, Oct. 29) that negligent security on the part of New York’s Port Authority was more responsible for the damage from the first (1993) bombing at the World Trade Center than the Islamist terrorists themselves:
Through some mathematical wizardry, the jurors held the authority to be 68 percent at fault, the murderers only 32 percent.
Poor terrorists! Guess they couldn’t help themselves. They must have felt they had no choice but to take advantage of a security lapse.
(“Sometimes Big Brother Is a Protector”, Nov. 1, immured behind Times Select wall).
Online Freedom of Speech Act
The “Online Freedom of Speech Act”, H.R. 1606, which will exempt the Internet from McCain-Feingold (as was the case in the 2004 election), is being considered by Congress today. If Democrats continue to oppose it, the FEC will pass court-ordered regulation that could affect the ability of websites like this one to use the authors’ First Amendment rights to legally comment on federal elections, which in turn could set a precedent for state regulation. It’s fascinating to watch Daily Kos folk tie themselves in knots over the inevitable repercussions of the evisceration of the First Amendment in McCain-Feingold and McConnell v. FEC while simultaneously trying to hold the idea that this sort of campaign finance regulation is a good thing. But it’s also important that some roadblocks be placed in the way of the slippery slope. If this isn’t persuasive, then consider the fact that the New York Times opposes the legislation. Call your Congressperson. (Rep. Hensarling Redstate post.)
Jay Sekulow
Major investigative piece by Tony Mauro for Legal Times on “the leading Supreme Court advocate of the Christian right,” alleging that Sekulow has feathered his nest very nicely through the use of his American Center for Law and Justice, which in 2003 raised $14.5 million for its high-profile legal advocacy. Among the specifics: payments to Sekulow that are very high by non-profit standards, along with perks such as the use of a private jet, chauffeur-driven cars and several houses; jobs for his family members on the payroll; and circuitous routings of both donations and expenditures that have the effect of sanitizing ACLJ’s financial statements. “A review of publicly available tax and court documents, as well as interviews with several former employees, paints a stark portrait of Sekulow as a hard-charging man who emerged from bankruptcy and allegations of securities fraud in the late 1980s to build a complex network of personal, business, and nonprofit entities. At times, those financial dealings have alienated employees and been criticized in court.” They have also produced a backlash among many associates who believe that Sekulow’s handling of his organizations’ finances, which draw heavily on support by small donors, does not well exemplify Christian teachings. Vital reading (“The Secrets of Jay Sekulow”, Legal Times, Nov. 1). More: Mike Cernovich, Jeremy Richey, Legal Reader, Mike Airhart. And: Jonathan Rowe, Ed Brayton, Rob Huddleston, Radley Balko, Greg Prince; and welcome Andrew Sullivan readers.
Next week’s balloting
Looking forward to next Tuesday’s election:
* The American Justice Partnership is blasting Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine, noting that while a practicing trial lawyer he was sanctioned by a court for filing a suit deemed meritless and that while mayor of Richmond he asked staffers to look into the possibility of having the city sue gun manufacturers. For an account of the 1989 suit, see AP coverage, Jan. 10, and this Commonwealth Conservative post, the comments section of which indicates the Kaine campaign’s response. The Kaine campaign’s response on the gun-suit issue is here.
* * In California, campaigning continues on Proposition 79 (see Oct. 26), which would among other provisions empower anyone to sue pharmaceutical companies for the vaguely defined offense of “profiteering”. (William Finn Bennett, “Libertarians blast both prescription drug initiatives”, North County Times, Oct. 29). The Civil Justice Association of California strongly opposes the measure, as should we all.
* Washington state doctors and lawyers continue to battle down to the wire on legal-fee limits (see Ted Frank, PoL, Sept. 12) and now the lawyers appear to have thrown in the towel on their counter-initiative so as to devote all resources to defeating the doctor-backed I-330. (Ralph Thomas, “Doctors, lawyers toss mud to tout message”, Seattle Times, Oct. 10; Seattle Times, “Lawyers’ new goal: Defeat I-330”, Oct. 31) (via KevinMD). Pro-I-330 forces have put up a website whose contents, like its name, are rather rude: TheirLipsAreMoving.com (if you need the reference to the old lawyer joke explained, visit the site). And Arizona doctors are studying the Washington initiative with an eye to possibly launching one of their own, despite trial lawyers’ threats of a revenge-initiative if they do (Phil Riske, “Doctors, lawyers still might square off on the ballot”, Arizona Capitol Times, Oct. 31).
“Trial Lawyers Inc. — Health Care”
Last week the Manhattan Institute (with which I’m associated) released Trial Lawyers Inc. — Health Care, the third in its series of “annual reports” on the doings of the litigation industry. (The first two were a general nationwide report under the title of “Trial Lawyers Inc.“, and a report on trial lawyers’ doings in California). While I can’t take credit for the new report — Jim Copland, who heads the Institute’s Center for Legal Policy, is the one to thank — I can report that the new publication is chock full of valuable facts and statistics about the health care litigation scene, and is must reading for anyone who wants to follow the subject. Subdivision/chapters include:
Drugs and Medical Devices
Special Focus: Vaccines
Medical Malpractice
Special Focus: Hospitals
Health Maintenance Organizations
Government Relations/Public Relations
For our posts on these issues, see our “Bad Medicine” pages, first and second series, and (for pharmaceutical matters) our products liability page. The new TLI report, again, begins here in HMTL form, and can be downloaded in PDF form here.
Joan Kennedy Taylor, RIP
A cherished friend, wise adviser and writer/activist of formidable gifts, Joan Kennedy Taylor died on Sunday at age 78 after a long illness. Joan was a key figure in the early history of the Manhattan Institute; her supremely thoughtful work helping Charles Murray to shape and present the argument of Losing Ground, the book that demonstrated the failure of the War on Poverty and revolutionized the welfare debate, rightly became a legend in the policy world. Much of Joan’s own writing sought to advance the themes with which she was above all else associated, namely those of an individualist feminism grounded in Enlightenment values and committed to liberty and specifically to free expression. Her unique book for the Cato Institute and NYU Press, What to Do When You Don’t Want to Call the Cops: A Non-Adversarial Approach to Sexual Harassment, was discussed on this site Nov. 12 and Nov. 13-14, 1999 and Feb. 19-21, 2000.
Joan made an enormous impression on me when I first met her in 1976, having already been a fan of her radio commentaries (she was one of the contributors to CBS radio’s rotating “Spectrum” lineup). When I landed in New York City ten years later it was inevitable that I would seek out her renewed acquaintance. Only much later did I learn about the fascinating life she had led, born to a family of much cultivation (her father was the prominent music critic and composer Deems Taylor), and later close for many years to Ayn Rand. Joan’s preferred methods of persuasion, however, could hardly have stood in more contrast from those of Rand, as may be evident from this profile:
While her views put her at odds with many “mainstream” feminists, Taylor says she prefers to work to build alliances rather than accentuate differences. “New Deal feminists may put more faith in government solutions than would libertarians or classical liberals,” she said in an online discussion (May 7, 1999). “But I think it makes sense to keep the bridges to what is good about the liberal tradition, so that one can call upon our common heritage in the Enlightenment and the American constitutional tradition of individual rights.”
Always reluctant to turn political disagreements into occasions for acrimony and denunciation, Joan raised to a virtual art the search for common ground with others of good will. Other comments: Jesse Walker, Cathy Young, Ed Hudgins (and more) and Wendy McElroy (cross-posted at Point of Law).
P.S. There is now a tribute blog whose first post offers a more detailed account of her life. And now Charles Murray has published, in Reason, a beautifully written appreciation (Nov. 1). More: Chris Sciabarra, Dave Zincavage. And an obituary article by Jeff Riggenbach.
Rhode Island lead paint retrial
The state’s public nuisance action against companies that long ago sold lead paint for interior use, the only such lawsuit filed by a state government, ended in a mistrial three years ago: see Oct. 30-31, 2002. Now it’s come to retrial in a Providence courtroom, with huge potential stakes. (Eric Tucker, “Landmark lawsuit against lead paint industry to return to court”, AP/Boston Globe, Oct. 16; “New lead paint trial set in Rhode Island”, UPI/Science Daily, Oct. 17.) Speechwriter/blogger Jane Genova is blogging it live from the scene, with first posts here and here. DuPont paid this summer to be let out of the case: see Jul. 2. On the politics behind the suit, see Jun. 7 and Jun. 8-10, 2001.
Toronto schools: Halloween insensitive to witches
From the National Post (Nicholas Kohler, “School board cautions against offending Wiccans”, Oct. 27)(via Stuttaford):
Teachers should forego traditional classroom Halloween celebrations because they are disrespectful of Wiccans and may cause some children to feel excluded, says a Toronto District School Board memo sent to principals and teachers this week.
“Many recently arrived students in our schools share absolutely none of the background cultural knowledge that is necessary to view ‘trick or treating,’ the commercialization of death, the Christian sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs, as ‘fun,’ ” says the memo.
Showing more common sense than the school board, an actual Wiccan priestess interviewed by the newspaper, Nicole Cooper, said she didn’t feel threatened by costumes or trick-or-treating: “If I had children I wouldn’t deprive them of that — it’s a really fun thing to do. It’s engaging in the spirit of the season; it’s exciting for kids,” she said.
Alito: One big point in his favor
Sen. Reid doesn’t like him (Rick Klein, “Democrats’ Reid urges Bush to oust Rove”, Boston Globe, Oct. 31)(via Kathryn Lopez)(more). For much more on nominee Samuel Alito Jr., see the ongoing blogging at Point of Law.