OK, my headline is admittedly too simplistic. In fact, the whole medical malpractice milieu is sorely in need of a fix. We have unnecessarily large awards to aggrieved patients, crushing insurance costs to doctors to cover malpractice, a situation where defensive medicine drives up costs, and an entire industry of lawyers whose job it is, apparently, to rape the system and cause it to be burdensome for all of us. On top of that, we have a national party in the Democrats assisting these very destructive lawyers to do just that. This is a part of our medical system that truly needs reform.

We can start by getting Democrats to stop doing everything they can to bend over backwards for the John Edwards’ of this world — ambulance chasers extraordinaire. Democrats are the reason this has gotten so bad. And imagine, we are trusting to Democrats to “fix” what they, themselves broke with the greedy assistance of the trial lawyers.

Read More →

If you’ve spent any time at all on Internet message boards or in college debate class you’ll have seen the rafters vibrate with righteous condemnation against the “slippery slope argument.” It is claimed that a worst case, ultimate extrapolation of a thing is a bad argument because it isn’t necessarily a truism. Supporters of the Second Amendment, for instance, are scolded by liberals when the supporter says that any new gun law is “one more step to banning guns.” The gun restricter says that the gun supporter is employing a “slippery slope” argument and that it is idiotic to claim that one new law must mean that a gun ban is the ultimate outcome. One doesn’t necessarily follow the other.

It is a logical conclusion, of course, that one step won’t necessarily lead to a series of other steps. But, humanity isn’t ruled by logic and those small steps that ultimately lead down the road to ruin are far more common than not. Here is another example of how one step led to another to bad effect and, as is far too often the case, the situation at hand was made in the arena of the law. And recently that slope descended even further down that road to hell.

Read More →

The Chairman of the Associated Press had some sharp words for those darned ol’ Internet interlopers out there. He said he’s “mad as hell” over those who “walk off with our work.” Though Chairman Dean Singleton didn’t exactly specify who he was talking about, according to Politico, the wire agency has been targeting Google, Bloggers and news aggregator sites such as Huffington Post of late.

So, what does it mean? How far will the AP go to protect its work? Are there court cases soon to be seen?

Read More →

Ever since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor began babbling about it several years ago, the talk of Supreme Court Justices of the United States of America using foreign court rulings to base their decisions upon has been a topic of dread for those interested in adhering to the U.S. Constitution.

It should be shocking to see a U.S. Supreme Justice talking about using foreign precedent but it would sadly not surprise anyone that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former ACLU lawyer, is doing just that. Not only is she bringing up the subject but she professes not to understand why any American would be upset that a SCOTUS Justice might see nothing wrong with using foreign court decisions to decide our own rulings.

Apparently the word “sovereignty,” and the phrase “supreme law of the land” are not as important to her as they are to most Americans as infuriating as that is.

Read More →

This is not a story of bias in the media. It is a story, rather, that affects both the Old Media of newspapers, TV and radio, as well as the New Media of the Internet. Our disagreements with the Old Media aside, we both stand to see trouble if a recent court case in Massachusetts gains momentum or is applied liberally henceforth.

The Associated Press reports on a libel case in Boston that pits a fired employee of the Staples office supply chain against his former employer. Staples, as it happens, sent out an emailed newsletter informing its employees that salesman Alan Noonan was fired for padding his expense account. Noonan sued for libel. Alarmingly, even though the emailed newsletter was reporting the strict truth the court held that truth was no defense in this case.

Read More →

With apologies to the many fine folks at law that visit these pages, and those of my colleagues here on RedState that ply the law, today I am going to act the vulgar Shakespearian and advocate to “first kill all the lawyers.” Well, if not kill them exactly, then at least put many of them out of work — not that I am any expert on Shakespeare, he says to a chorus of “you betchas.” Still, the thought comes to mind because of a recent story in the Boston Globe that waxes pathetic over the many Bean Town lawyers that can’t find a job in this faltering economy.

The Globe piece starts out with a pity party for Boston lawyer Paul Semenza, a lawyer for 25 years that cannot find a job in his chosen profession. He now sells sofas and mattresses in a furniture outlet. And to that I say, good riddance to Paul… at least figuratively as Paul may be the nicest fellow in the world. But may he take several thousands more of his kind with him into exile. Let them get real jobs that are useful to his fellows at long last.

Oh, the Globe tries to ratchet up the water works for the lawyerly set to the highest levels, but I’m not buying.

Read More →

One of the benefits of reading a lot of judicial opinions, as I do, is that you get to see a lot of retail examples of how our government operates at its most legalistic-bureaucratic. Yesterday’s opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in River Street Donuts, LLC v. Napolitano is a wonderful little vignette about a bureaucratic system run amok.

Read More →

Linky, link link:

Reporting from Washington — Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, President Obama’s choice to represent his administration before the Supreme Court, told a key Republican senator Tuesday that she believed the government could hold suspected terrorists without trial as war prisoners.

She echoed comments by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. during his confirmation hearing last month. Both agreed that the United States was at war with Al Qaeda and suggested the law of war allows the government to capture and hold alleged terrorists without charges.

If confirmed as U.S. solicitor general, Kagan, 48, will defend the administration’s legal policy in the courts.

This gives the Obama Administration as much license as the Bush Administration had in setting detainee policy. It is, in fact, no different from the stance that the Bush Administration took. Note as well that in the story, Kagan is recorded as agreeing that we are at war with terrorism–the efforts of other members of the Obama Administration, including the President, to try to retire the “war on terror” rhetoric notwithstanding.

Best to stand clear of the heads of various people on the other side of the partisan divide, as those heads are likely exploding as I type this.