Thursday, October 27, 2005
My Responses to Gipper Clone
Despite having my response predicted, I'll make some observations about GC's post. (Note, I know nothing about this suit or the verdict other than what I have just read on TPS)
1) You relied on news reports in relaying the results of what I can only assume were after a highly complex case, never a good idea. They are often wrong, or at best not 100% accurate.
2) There is a good likelihood that this will be reversed on appeal as many verdicts of this type are.
3) You didn't mention anything about damages. Was this a bifurcated trial and the decision is only on liability, or was there money awarded? If the latter, than in addition to reversal on appeal you have the likelihood of the appellate court reducing the award considerably, something else that happens quite often in these types of cases.
4)This remark not the least of which is that there are American attorneys out there who are essentially functioning as the U.S.-based Litigation Division of Al Qaeda by hitting institutions that have already been struck by terrorism a second time, this time with a bill, is so silly and outlandish that you should be embarrassed to have written it. This case probably was well along the way prior to 9/11 so to connect the two in any way shape or form is ridiculous to say the least. Moreover, to equate people who are exercising legal right afforded to them under the laws of their state to terrorist is just plain stupid and I know you know better. You don't have to like plaintiff’s lawyers or what they do, but come on do you think that the lives and interests of those killed in 1993 are somehow diminished by what happened in 2001. I know you don't think that, so why accuse the people trying to vindicate those rights of being American terrorists? I could go on here, but you get my point.
5) Federal legislation immunizing people from liability isn’t the answer to this problem. That is only going to encourage people and corporations to act more irresponsible and will likely force taxpayers to bear the brunt of compensation as happened with the 9/11 victims compensation fund. As you probably know, that wonderful idea has suffered from all of your favorite government related maladies. It vastly overcompensated some, grossly under-compensated others and has been mired in mismanagement allegations since its inception. Is this really the system you would prefer? Or should those innocent persons injured in terrorist attacks simply go uncompensated and be considered soldiers in the GWOT?
6) This was a jury verdict correct? Thus, you can’t blame this on activist judges or anyone other than average New Yorkers. Isn’t the jury system supposed to be the model of a western democratic society? Is this not the same system that we are attempting to instill by gunpoint in Iraq? For what it’s worth, contrary to GC’s beliefs about me, I’ve never been a big fan of juries in civil trials. The Constitution doesn’t require them (except in criminal cases), and simply put, I’m snobbish and elitist enough to proudly say that I don’t trust 6 to 12 ordinary Americans to decide complex litigation cases after listening to a bunch of lawyers and experts for 10 months. So if GC wants to be hyper-critical of the jurors themselves for making what he considers a bad decision and setting a poor precedent he’s not going to get much an argument from me, expect to say that you reap what you sow, and this is the result of having our modern “best in the world” legal system. For all the good things that may come out our justice system, there is a lot of garbage as well. This may just be exhibit A.
7) GC was right about one thing, I’m not a big fan of tort reform, because I don’t believe that the current system is broken. People point to decisions like this all the time because all they see and hear about are the results. We have no idea what went on during the years that this case was litigated prior to trial. We have no idea if the Port Authority had opportunities to settle for far less than may have been awarded. We have no idea what evidence was presented or what the basis of the legal arguments were. We do know that procedurally this case was likely litigated before a judge on summary judgment and survived, which means that there was legal merit to the arguments, or at least factual disputes that required the case to go before the jury, but without having read the decision we can’t say whether that decision was correct or not. While I’m more than willing to engage anyone, anywhere on the merits of the tort laws in this country, I can’t and won’t do it based solely on the results of a few specific cases that people don’t like. When I defend the system as a whole, I’m more than willing to admit that has and will render some bad, unjust results from time to time. That being said, I will guarantee that there is more justice done on the civil side of courthouses than ever could hope to be accomplished on the criminal side, especially at the state and local court level. You don’t judge an entire legal system and body of law that dates back to English common law, on the merits of a few selected erroneous decisions, any more than I could defend it based on a few arguably “correct” decisions. You have to take the good with the bad, and trust me when I promise there is far good produced overall than bad.
Okay, I’m done for now. Harriet Miers withdrew this morning with the White House utilizing the Charles Krauthammer way out. Now I think that will and should take up most of our time and attention, and I hope to have a post up regarding executive privilege soon.
1) You relied on news reports in relaying the results of what I can only assume were after a highly complex case, never a good idea. They are often wrong, or at best not 100% accurate.
2) There is a good likelihood that this will be reversed on appeal as many verdicts of this type are.
3) You didn't mention anything about damages. Was this a bifurcated trial and the decision is only on liability, or was there money awarded? If the latter, than in addition to reversal on appeal you have the likelihood of the appellate court reducing the award considerably, something else that happens quite often in these types of cases.
4)This remark not the least of which is that there are American attorneys out there who are essentially functioning as the U.S.-based Litigation Division of Al Qaeda by hitting institutions that have already been struck by terrorism a second time, this time with a bill, is so silly and outlandish that you should be embarrassed to have written it. This case probably was well along the way prior to 9/11 so to connect the two in any way shape or form is ridiculous to say the least. Moreover, to equate people who are exercising legal right afforded to them under the laws of their state to terrorist is just plain stupid and I know you know better. You don't have to like plaintiff’s lawyers or what they do, but come on do you think that the lives and interests of those killed in 1993 are somehow diminished by what happened in 2001. I know you don't think that, so why accuse the people trying to vindicate those rights of being American terrorists? I could go on here, but you get my point.
5) Federal legislation immunizing people from liability isn’t the answer to this problem. That is only going to encourage people and corporations to act more irresponsible and will likely force taxpayers to bear the brunt of compensation as happened with the 9/11 victims compensation fund. As you probably know, that wonderful idea has suffered from all of your favorite government related maladies. It vastly overcompensated some, grossly under-compensated others and has been mired in mismanagement allegations since its inception. Is this really the system you would prefer? Or should those innocent persons injured in terrorist attacks simply go uncompensated and be considered soldiers in the GWOT?
6) This was a jury verdict correct? Thus, you can’t blame this on activist judges or anyone other than average New Yorkers. Isn’t the jury system supposed to be the model of a western democratic society? Is this not the same system that we are attempting to instill by gunpoint in Iraq? For what it’s worth, contrary to GC’s beliefs about me, I’ve never been a big fan of juries in civil trials. The Constitution doesn’t require them (except in criminal cases), and simply put, I’m snobbish and elitist enough to proudly say that I don’t trust 6 to 12 ordinary Americans to decide complex litigation cases after listening to a bunch of lawyers and experts for 10 months. So if GC wants to be hyper-critical of the jurors themselves for making what he considers a bad decision and setting a poor precedent he’s not going to get much an argument from me, expect to say that you reap what you sow, and this is the result of having our modern “best in the world” legal system. For all the good things that may come out our justice system, there is a lot of garbage as well. This may just be exhibit A.
7) GC was right about one thing, I’m not a big fan of tort reform, because I don’t believe that the current system is broken. People point to decisions like this all the time because all they see and hear about are the results. We have no idea what went on during the years that this case was litigated prior to trial. We have no idea if the Port Authority had opportunities to settle for far less than may have been awarded. We have no idea what evidence was presented or what the basis of the legal arguments were. We do know that procedurally this case was likely litigated before a judge on summary judgment and survived, which means that there was legal merit to the arguments, or at least factual disputes that required the case to go before the jury, but without having read the decision we can’t say whether that decision was correct or not. While I’m more than willing to engage anyone, anywhere on the merits of the tort laws in this country, I can’t and won’t do it based solely on the results of a few specific cases that people don’t like. When I defend the system as a whole, I’m more than willing to admit that has and will render some bad, unjust results from time to time. That being said, I will guarantee that there is more justice done on the civil side of courthouses than ever could hope to be accomplished on the criminal side, especially at the state and local court level. You don’t judge an entire legal system and body of law that dates back to English common law, on the merits of a few selected erroneous decisions, any more than I could defend it based on a few arguably “correct” decisions. You have to take the good with the bad, and trust me when I promise there is far good produced overall than bad.
Okay, I’m done for now. Harriet Miers withdrew this morning with the White House utilizing the Charles Krauthammer way out. Now I think that will and should take up most of our time and attention, and I hope to have a post up regarding executive privilege soon.
# posted by mouldfan : 8:58 AM
