Attorney, for intimidation purposes only, no followup required [Elie Mystal, Above the Law]
Podcast on Wal-Mart v. Dukes
From Jim Copland and Ted Frank of the Manhattan Institute.
The defense rests
“Sleepwalker not responsible for brutal attack” [Calgary Sun via Lowering the Bar, who also contributes the headline above]
Informant at the next desk
Regulators “embed” in the financial industry [WSJ]. Coming to your business next?
Europe’s unwelcoming tech hatchery
Why does Europe generate so few star high-tech firms? Bad labor law is one reason [Brian Palmer, Slate]
Justices “split largely along gender lines”
The L.A. Times misses the boat when it acts as if biology — and not known judicial philosophy as expressed in earlier cases — were the factor that best explains Justices’ alignments in cases like Wal-Mart v. Dukes [Eugene Volokh]
Bungling nanny trashes 100,000 cribs
Around the country today, CPSC regulations are forcing retailers to throw out new, unused baby cribs — estimates of the number range higher than 100,000 — that the federal government itself considers safe enough to be used in day cares. I explain the latest Nanny State snafu in a new post at Cato at Liberty.
More: Quin Hillyer, CFIF; Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason. And CPSC commissioner Anne Northup corrects a misimpression in some parts of the press:
The new standards ban drop-side cribs. But the standards also prohibit the sale, new or used, of all cribs – both drop-side and fixed-side – that are not tested to the new standards by a private laboratory. Because very few cribs that were not originally manufactured to the new standards will ever be tested, the new standards essentially ban all such cribs – drop-side and fixed side. As reported in today’s press, millions of drop-side cribs have been recalled. On the other hand, tens of millions of fixed side cribs manufactured to previous standards have never been recalled, never been found to be unsafe, and now also cannot be sold new or resold used.
Pet shop banners
The San Francisco board of supervisors will consider a measure that would ban the sale of all pets in the city [L.A. Times, Outdoor Life, Telegraph (U.K.)] (& welcome Above the Law readers)
Welcome Boston Globe, New Yorker readers
Alex Beam at the Boston Globe and Ian Crouch at the New Yorker write about the rise of lawsuits over unsatisfactory book contents, as with class actions filed over Greg Mortenson’s challenged memoirs and, before that, those of James Frey. Beam also brings up the outrageous lawsuit against former President Jimmy Carter and his publisher by someone who disagrees with the views Carter expressed in a book on the Mideast conflict. I’m quoted in both pieces (and at especially generous length in Beam’s). [Boston Globe, New Yorker; earlier here, here, etc.] (& WSJ Law Blog)
“Hot Coffee” documentary (HBO) reviewed
Great review by Miami Herald TV critic Glenn Garvin casting a skeptical eye on the trial-lawyer film project (“done in by its essential dishonesty… like any good lawyer — and unlike any good documentarian — [director Susan Saladoff is] intent on concealing the weakness in her case).” Read it here. Meanwhile, from the “How does this sort of thing get past the editors of the Washington Post?” files, there’s this from Hank Stuever:
For to really embrace tort reform, you have to be willing to treat all potential plaintiffs as no-good grifters. … To support tort reform, you have to believe all lawsuits against businesses are a threat to the free market.
Stuever does not, for some reason, name any proponent of reform who has actually asserted either of the propositions. Do you think that might be because he’s trafficking in absurd caricatures? (earlier on “Hot Coffee” here, here, here, etc.)
P.S. More: Cory Andrews, WLF. And if lawyers are really eager to have the facts of the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case come out, it’s curious they don’t take steps to release the trial transcript, in the absence of which critics of the case are obliged to speculate on key points. And as I just wrote in a comment at Abnormal Use:
I believe organized tort reform groups were caught flat-footed by the McDonald’s case and didn’t get around to doing much with it until it had already become the talk of the nation through talk shows, late night TV and so forth. As often happens, plaintiff’s-side advocacy groups were more aggressive in seeking coverage for their side in the media. Thus Public Citizen and allies gave a press conference on Capitol Hill and were rewarded with a big Newsweek story summarizing their talking points (as well as, earlier, coverage in the news-side WSJ). I’m pretty sure no groups critical of the Liebeck award ever did a comparable press push; and the McDonald’s company itself, so far as I know, never chose to cooperate with commentators who might be sympathetic to its legal case.