For those who imagine that Ted and I are always in accord on each and every topic of the day, he’s got a post at NRO “Bench Memos” correcting that impression. And the nomination-blogging continues at Point of Law with links to Jim Copland and John Hasnas columns, and an Ilya Somin podcast; and Jim reacts to the widely discussed Thomas Goldstein analysis of the judge’s rulings (about 100 of them) in race cases.
Archive for June, 2009
For New York-area readers: on WOR radio, 7:10 AM Wednesday
I’m scheduled to be on the John Gambling show on WOR-710AM at, er, 7:10 AM on Wednesday the 3rd, discussing my recent Congressional testimony on the costs of the litigation system.
Update: a podcast of the segment is available under “June 3” on the WOR website.
Update: Taster’s Choice guy award before Calif. high court
At PoL, Michael Krauss comments on the latest stage in the appeal of Christoff v. Nestle USA, the $15.6 million award over using a model’s photo on a coffee label without ensuring the proper permissions were in place. Earlier here and here. More: Lowering the Bar.
The phrase “Chicago 2016”
Be careful using it, lest you hear from zealous Olympics lawyers [Chalkie, Apr. 28]
XML editing software worth $98?
“The lethal dangers of sand”
Wear appropriate protective clothing, “do not let this chemical enter the environment”, and if you come in contact with it, “immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes while removing contaminated clothing and shoes”. It’s ocean sand! MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets) are by and for lawyers: “Very few chemists, in my experience, spend much time with these forms at all, preferring to get their information from almost any other source.” [Derek Lowe via Virginia Postrel]
More: Interesting comments, including one on ionized water (if exposed, “flush the contaminated area with water”) and this from reader John: “Good news: if the sand is intended for use by children under 12, as of August 14 the sand itself will have to be permanently labeled with a batch number so it can be easily recalled.”
Government regulation of broadcast content
Administrations of both political parties shamelessly exploited the unlamented “Fairness Doctrine” to harass their critics in the broadcast world, and there’s every reason to believe that proposed “local content” mandates would be open to the same abuse. [John Samples, “Broadcast Localism and the Lessons of the Fairness Doctrine”, Cato Institute Policy Analysis #639, May 27 (PDF)]
Thumb-in-the-eye II: Cal Supremes affirm Buell-Wilson
We’ve been following Buell-Wilson v. Ford for some time, including the U.S. Supreme Court remand. Curt Cutting’s blog has the latest in two April posts here and here. Cal Biz Lit also has good commentary.
“Attorney Sanctioned for Bringing Time-Barred Securities Fraud Suit”
While our legal system is not much inclined to accord sanctions to the victims of meritless litigation, it does happen from time to time. [Vesselin Mitev, NYLJ; sanctions awarded against client John H. Libaire and Northport, L.I. attorney Mitchell A. Stein, who figured in 1990’s “Lion Sleeps Tonight” case]
“The U.S. Can’t Be the World’s Court”
So argued former State Department legal adviser John Bellinger III in the WSJ last week, with special reference to the overreaching, extraterritorial Alien Tort Statute. But it’s not as if the efforts to turn the U.S. into the courtroom for the world are slackening at all:
- As Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith note in the Washington Post, a federal court recently allowed to proceed a lawsuit seeking to blame the evils of South African apartheid on Western multinationals, even despite strong opposition to the suit from both the U.S. government’s executive branch and today’s duly elected multiracial South African government. Unfortunately, the State Department’s up-to-now-staunch opposition to this and similar lawsuits is imperiled by the installment of Harold Koh as legal adviser at Foggy Bottom: “Koh is an intellectual architect and champion of the post-1980 human rights litigation explosion. He joined a brief in the South Africa litigation arguing for broad aiding-and-abetting liability.”
- If asked what should happen to frozen Cuban-government assets under U.S. control, reasonable possibility #1 might be “hold them against the eventual day when a non-tyrannical regime emerges there, it will need help.” Reasonable possibility #2 might be “divide the assets among Castro’s many victims in some deliberate and step-by-step way, knowing that their injuries are so numerous and severe that even very deserving victims will get only small payments”. The answer you’d think makes no sense at all is “encourage first-come-first-served tort lawsuits, so that the first couple of cases to maneuver their way through the legal process get handsome compensation, while no money is left for either #1 or #2”. So naturally, the latter is what our legal system is doing, previously in $188 million and $253 million verdicts involving single incidents or families, and now in a new case in which the family of Gustavo Villoldo has been awarded $1.179 billion. One of the plaintiff’s lawyers in the case actually boasts that the new award may obstruct a warming of relations between the U.S. and a post-Castro successor regime: “with the opening of relations between the U.S. and Cuba to come, there are debts to society to be paid before that happens” (more on Che Guevara, via).
- On the brighter side, the Obama administration has joined its Bush predecessors in correctly drawing a line against litigation by some September 11 victims and insurance companies: under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, the courts are no place to pursue theories trying to link the rulers of Saudi Arabia to the terrorist attacks.
(cross-posted from Point of Law)