Category Archives: Courts

Lawsuits

Posted on by
Reply

The carrion-eaters are gathering.

Of all the problems haunting General Motors Co over its handling of defective ignition switches, the one with plaintiffs’ lawyers is just beginning.

The company’s size and self-confessed failures in an internal report released last week are attracting lawyers who forged some of the biggest civil settlements ever

And

It is common for bad headlines and deep pockets to lure plaintiffs’ lawyers—and a pile of lawsuits. In 2012, BP PLC agreed to pay at least $7.8 billion to end litigation over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Toyota settled for about $1.1 billion with owners of about 16 million cars affected by unintended-acceleration problems. Plaintiffs’ lawyers collected about $227 million in fees and costs.

And

Mark Robinson, [a] Newport Beach, CA lawyer…won a $127 million jury verdict in 1978 against Ford Motor Co….

Mr Robinson is hoping to be a major force in the GM ignition-switch suits. Also maneuvering for influence is Elizabeth Cabraser of San Francisco, a leader in litigation over the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, breast implants and the drugs Vioxx and Fen-Phen. The two lawyers are co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in personal-injury cases against Toyota.

But of course….

Another Correct Court Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

And, again, it comes in the area of free speech.

The 7th Circuit has ruled in Wisconsin Right to Life State v Timothy Vocke, a Wisconsin case concerning the permissible State government-imposed limits on political speech that Wisconsin’s law and a host of implementing rules are unconstitutional.

The Court’s unanimous ruling held, among other things, that

  • the state’s corporate-speech ban is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling
  • the cap on the amount a corporation may spend on fundraising for an affiliated political committee is unconstitutional
  • the lengthy disclaimer requirement under state Government Accountability Board’s regulation is unconstitutional as applied to 30-second radio ads and ads of shorter duration
  • the statutory definition of “political purposes,” section 11.01(16), and the regulatory definition of “political committee,” GAB § 1.28(1)(a), are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in the sense meant by federal court precedent.

This also is likely to cut the underpinnings out from beneath the Democrats’ secret John Doe investigations of exactly these sorts of organizations, which Star Chamber “investigations” are centered on exactly these now acknowledged to be unconstitutional grounds.

The ruling can be seen here.

Weak of Moral Character

Posted on by
1

Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the idea of public prayer at the opening of (Greece, NY) town board meetings (and by extension at the opening of government meetings generally). The ruling, Town of Greece v Galloway, can be read here.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, wrote in part

From the earliest days of the Nation, these invocations have been addressed to assemblies comprising many different creeds. These ceremonial prayers strive for the idea that people of many faiths may be united in a community of tolerance and devotion. Even those who disagree as to religious doctrine may find common ground in the desire to show respect for the divine in all aspects of their lives and being. Our tradition assumes that adult citizens, firm in their own beliefs, can tolerate and perhaps appreciate a ceremonial prayer delivered by a person of a different faith.

Justice Elena Kagan demurred from that view of the fundamental adulthood of American citizens. She wrote in dissent

…Greece’s town meetings involve participation by ordinary citizens, and the invocations given—directly to those citizens—were predominantly sectarian in content. … So month in and month out for over a decade, prayers steeped in only one faith, addressed toward members of the public, commenced meetings to discuss local affairs and distribute government benefits. In my view, that practice does not square with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government.

Because in the Progressive view of Americans, we don’t have the strength of character, the firmness of moral belief of an adult human being. Like children, we need continual instruction by government in what to believe, we need continual stiffening by government to hew to the correct line. We can’t do these things on our own.

Once again, Progressives are projecting their own failings onto others. (And that bit about “distribut[ing] government benefits:” another Progressivism—that’s the purpose of government.)

Another Thought on Privacy

Posted on by
Reply

David Kravets, writing in ars technica had one concerning a couple of cases coming before the Supreme Court dealing with the legitimacy of warrantless searches of cell phones and other digital devices pursuant to an otherwise legitimate arrest.

President Barack Obama’s administration and prosecutors from states across the country have lobbied for police officers to be able to search arrestees’ gadgets—at or about the time of arrest—without a warrant. Such action, however, demands an examination of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” If nine out of 10 American adults own mobile phones and the devices have advanced to become virtual extensions of our personal and private lives, at what point does law enforcement’s access to their call logs, photos, and cloud-hosted data become “unreasonable” invasions of constitutionally protected privacy?

Indeed. It’s also necessary to keep such ancillary searches in context. The courts long have held that when a man is arrested, the police can pat him down, even do cursory inspections of his car if that’s where he was arrested—look in the trunk, for instance—to be sure he has no weapons that would enable him to harm the arresting officer(s) or devices that would facilitate him attempting to escape from them.

It’s clear, though, or it should be clear, that the electronic contents of a cell phone or of a laptop or…can present no danger of either of those possibilities.

It’s also apparent that the two characters in the cases before the Supreme Court are unsavory at best. It’s also clear that the cursory search of the car David Riley was driving at the time of his arrest was both legitimate and fruitful—the police found weapons secreted in it. However, the persons’ unsavoriness is not an excuse for proceeding with the illegitimate, in my view, searches of their cell phones—there were no dangers to be found in those electrons; a search warrant should have been obtained before the searches conducted.

If such warrantless searches are allowed, what’s to stop government from expanding the scope to the less unsavory among us? To the entirely savory, other than those of whom government disapproves (IRS, anyone)?

There wasn’t even any danger of evidence contained in the phones being destroyed before the warrants could be issued; the cells were safely in police custody.

In one of the two cases, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr made explicit a part of the Federal government’s rationale for such warrantless searches:

[J]ustices “should not deprive officers of an investigative tool that is increasingly important for preserving evidence of serious crimes based on purely imaginary fears that police officers will invoke their authority to review drug dealers’…’appointments with marital counselors’ or armed robbers’ ‘apps to help smokers quit.'” (Verrilli was citing examples lodged with the court by the Center for Democracy & Technology.)

Yet in making this argument, Verrilli has shown his utter lack of understanding of our social compact. Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are designed to carry out exactly that prior restraint, because ultimately government cannot be trusted to restrain itself. This is what John Adams was talking about when he wrote to his wife

Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

Bigotry in the Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

…not of the Supreme Court. I writing now about the Court’s ruling in the Michigan affirmative action case (Schuette v BAMN) concerning the state’s “decision to end affirmative action at its public universities.”

The Court ruled 6-2 to uphold Michigan’s decision, holding essentially, that such a choice should be left to the States’ citizenry and not determined by the court system.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court (mostly—there were a number of separate concurring opinions), expanded on that:

The electorate’s instruction to governmental entities not to embark upon the course of race-defined and race-based preferences was adopted, we must assume, because the voters deemed a preference system to be unwise on account of what voters may deem its latent potential to become itself a source of the very resentments and hostilities based on race that this nation seeks to put behind it.

Justice Elena Kagan recused, Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg joined the dissent.

Sadly, Sotomayor’s dissent was fundamentally racist.[1] She insisted that “race matters.” And

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.

Indeed. But the Constitution, which must be applied “with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination,” must be applied as it is written—especially because, in the present context, the Constitution is color—and gender, come to that—blind, and explicitly so under the 14th Amendment. That means that there cannot be anything other than equal treatment under law; in particular, there cannot be special treatment for some groups, and there cannot be special treatment for some groups at the expense of other groups.

Applying special treatment, as Sotomayor demands because of those centuries of racial discrimination, is only to maintain that racial discrimination for centuries more.

She attempted to offer alternatives to citizens speaking their voice:

In the wake of Grutter, some voters in Michigan set out to eliminate the use of race-sensitive admissions policies. Those voters were of course free to pursue this end in any number of ways. For example, they could have persuaded existing board members to change their minds through individual or grassroots lobbying efforts, or through gen­eral public awareness campaigns. Or they could have mobilized efforts to vote uncooperative board members out of office, replacing them with members who would share their desire to abolish race-sensitive admissions policies.

This, of course, is just what the voters of Michigan did—only they did it state-wide, rather than piecemeal. There is no difference between the two, except in the mind of Sotomayor.

She buried this in a footnote:

Although the term “affirmative action” is commonly used to describe colleges’ and universities’ use of race in crafting admissions policies, I instead use the term “race-sensitive admissions policies.”

Which is nothing but the racism of preferential treatment based on race. Made blatant by her preferred term of reference.

Sotomayor concluded her dissent with this:

For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.

Because, of course, we cannot demarginalize those groups by treating them like adults and equals, we can only demarginalize them by perpetuating their status as…dependents…through continuing to single them out for special treatment.

I respectfully dissent from Sotomayor’s dissent.

 

[1] I of course do not mean to suggest that Justice Sotomayor wrote with anything like invidious intent. But the dissent at issue in this case seeks to change the rules of the political process and of the 14th Amendment to the disadvantage of members of our society disfavored by government.

Update: Added Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s first name to the first time she’s mentioned in the post.  It’s my usual habit; I missed it this time.