The magazine’s “Top Political Bloggers” poll this morning quotes me (twice) on the subject of the horrible and misnamed Employee Free Choice Act, which would end employees’ right to a secret ballot on unionization and impose union contracts on unwilling employers through obligatory arbitration. Most of my blogging on the subject of EFCA and its “card check” provision is actually at my other blog, Point of Law, though.
Archive for 2008
GWB as regulator: new opt-out “conscience” rules for health workers
“The Bush administration, as expected, announced new protections on Thursday for health care providers who oppose abortion and other medical procedures on religious or moral grounds.” (NYT via GruntDoc). I briefly criticized this bad idea in a post last week at Secular Right, and there are hopes that the incoming Obama administration will rescind it. P.S. Longer post now up over there.
Expelled from Miss Porter’s — but it was the Oprichniki’s fault
The family of Tatum Bass of South Carolina has filed a federal lawsuit over her dismissal from Miss Porter’s, the all-girls private school in Farmington, Connecticut. The suit “acknowledges that Bass was suspended from school this fall for cheating on a test. But the lawsuit contends that Bass only cheated because she was frazzled by” belittlement and bullying from a clique of other girls who are said to have called themselves the “Oprichniki,” after the secret police in czarist Russia. (Vanessa de la Torre, “Miss Porter’s School Sued Over Expulsion”, Hartford Courant, Dec. 10).
“MPs accuse courts of allowing libel tourism”
Sounds like British libel law is finally getting seriously controversial in Britain: “Lawyers and judges were accused by MPs yesterday of using ‘Soviet-style’ English libel laws to help the rich and powerful to hide their secrets. …Bridget Prentice, the Justice Minister, told MPs that the Government would announce a consultation on libel and the internet, and the high cost of defamation proceedings.” (Dominic Kennedy, Times Online, Dec. 18).
Insurance law Hall of Fame
“An insurance company with a potential $25 million liability from a 2007 Houston office fire is claiming smoke that killed three people was ‘pollution’ and surviving families shouldn’t be compensated for their losses since the deaths were not caused directly by the actual flames. Great American Insurance Company is arguing in a Houston federal court that the section of the insurance policy that excludes payments for pollution — like discharges or seepage that require cleanup — would also exclude payouts for damages, including deaths, caused by smoke, or pollution, that results from a fire.” (Mary Flood, “Insurance loophole claimed in fire deaths”, Houston Chronicle, Dec. 17).
Class action: too many giblets in Perdue chickens
A spokeswoman for the poultry company told the WSJ Law Blog: “While it is company practice not to comment on pending litigation, I can tell you the majority of our giblets complaints are about MISSING giblets.”
“Judge’s daughter sues driver she ran into during crash”
“Convicted last year of intoxication manslaughter for the death of her boyfriend, the 21-year-old daughter of a state district judge is suing the truck driver she ran into during a drunken driving crash. …[Elizabeth] Shelton had a blood alcohol concentration more than three times the legal limit, two tests showed.” (Brian Rogers, Houston Chronicle, Dec. 18). Feral Child has been digging up all sorts of interesting stuff about the lawyer representing Elizabeth Shelton, too — his name is Mark Sandoval — and his past dealings with her father, Harris County Judge Pat Shelton. He wonders whether it has something to do with standards being lower in Texas, although, unfortunately, we can think of this sort of thing going on in many other states too. And then Mark Bennett of Defending People jumps in and does even more research about Sandoval’s disciplinary record. And does he ever find stuff.
The Houston Chronicle deserves credit for breaking the original story, but as you may have noticed it took only hours for two skillful bloggers, SSFC and Bennett, to push it much farther. The blogosphere is proving itself extremely powerful in shedding a quick and bright light on some of the darker corners of the legal system.
Roy Pearson loses again
New at City Journal: “Windows on the Future?”
I’ve got a new piece just up at City Journal on last week’s occupation of the Republic Windows and Doors factory in Chicago, led by a union on the left fringe of the American labor movement. The action ended after six days with the capitulation of Bank of America and Chase under intense political pressure. Earlier coverage here. A few points:
- You’d have had trouble guessing from a lot of the coverage, but it’s far from clear that the window factory owners owed any severance at all under the terms of the federal WARN (plant-closings) act. And it’s abundantly clear that the actual targets of the protest, the two banks, owed nothing.
- The whole point of this sort of illegal action is to resolve by force a dispute that would otherwise be consigned to the ordinary processes of law — put differently, to make sure the action’s targets never get their right to a day in court to put forth their (quite possibly meritorious) defense. When Chicago and Illinois officials jumped in to arm-twist the targets into settling, they endorsed this way of resolving disputes. That may come as little surprise given the reputation of Chicago governance. But why should anyone feel secure in locating a politically sensitive business in that city (or state) from now on?
- Among those who either cheered the illegality or viewed it with complacency are not only high public officials but law professors, commentators and leaders of the legal profession. Indeed, President-elect (and former law professor) Barack Obama vocally backed the union’s cause at a press conference while pointedly saying not a word about its unlawfulness of its actions. Should we ever again take seriously the rumblings of any of these parties about the all-importance of the rule of law?
- Some in the media, like Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, applauded the illegal action and left-leaning Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson called for more of the same: “Barack Obama means to build a more equitable nation, but it would help him in that task if more workers sat down”. Does Obama agree?
(cross-posted from Point of Law).
“Judicial Watch: Barking at the Moon?”
Daniel Libit at Politico (Dec. 17) quotes me in a new piece on Judicial Watch, the more-or-less-conservative activist group that brought disrepute on itself in the Clinton years by advancing litigation (often of highly dubious merit) as a scorched-earth method of politics-by-other-means. Since the departure of eccentric founder Larry Klayman the group has been edging back toward respectability, but the return of Hillary Clinton to the Executive Branch seems to have rekindled a “Pavlovian” impulse to sue first and think later.