A VP Who Sticks Up For The Little Guy
Like every other left-leaning blogger, I’m very excited that Edwards is Kerry’s VP choice. Of all the choices I’ve seen thrown around (the Gep, Vilsack, Bayh), he’s the only one that made anyone excited. The fact that Edwards has such strong backing from the left despite his less-than ideal track record (see : Dean, Howard) shows that this ticket is gonna to a lot to unite people behind more than just “Anybody But Bush”.
I won’t bore you with one of those “Top 10 Reasons Edwards Is Da Bomb” posts that you’ll be seeing all over the place and I certainly won’t be printing out of context quotes from the primary season to show that Kerry and Edwards aren’t best buddies (I’m looking in your direction, CNN), but there is one thing about Edwards that has me really excited. When all is said and done, I hope that Edwards is able to do a little damage to the myth that all lawyers are money-grubbing ambulance chasers.
Now we’ll be hearing lots of sneering about “trial lawyers” during this campaign, but one thing the Bushies are going to be careful about is making the accusation anywhere near John Edwards. If they give Edwards a chance at a rebuttal, he’s got plenty of stories to tell, like this one from the Washington Monthly :
Until he moved to the senate, Edwards was a personal injury lawyer—the kind people most love to hate—and a very talented one. More than half his cases were medical malpractice suits. Many involved infants born with brain damage or other serious conditions that entail a lifetime of expensive medical care. Edwards also won cases against hospitals, cities, and corporations.
. . .
Edwards won a $7 million verdict for the parents of a 16-year-old who’d killed himself the day after being dismissed from a psychiatric hospital, an incredibly difficult case to win, Dayton says, because in North Carolina the plaintiff must prove that the entire burden of negligence lies with the defendant. In 1997, Edwards successfully sued a doctor for $23 million on behalf of the parents of a baby severely brain damaged by oxygen deprivation during labor.The defining case in Edwards’ legal career wrapped up that same year. In 1993, a five-year-old girl named Valerie Lakey had been playing in a Wake County, N.C., wading pool when she became caught in an uncovered drain so forcefully that the suction pulled out most of her intestines. She survived but for the rest of her life will need to be hooked up to feeding tubes for 12 hours each night. Edwards filed suit on the Lakeys’ behalf against Sta-Rite Industries, the Wisconsin corporation that manufactured the drain.
I recommend reading the whole article, since it also contains this great little nugget about the importance of the civil justice system :
For all the noise Republicans make about trial lawyers interfering with the free market, most people prefer driving on tires that don’t explode, living in homes with insulation that won’t kill them, and raising babies in cribs that won’t strangle them. They aren’t particularly bothered if it takes fear of litigation to bring these things about.Through the discovery process, trial lawyers also unearth valuable documents that even federal agencies aren’t privy to. One case in point: the lawyers who sued Firestone discovered that the company had known of the problem. As such, they provide valuable consumer protections—particularly in areas like medicine that are largely free from government regulation.
Whenever people hear the word “sue”, they immediately think about the grandma who spilled coffee on herself or some imaginary case in which someone was given $100 million for having a hangnail, but they don’t step back and realize that the civil courts are an essential part of our justice system. If you’re the victim of a crime due to a corporation’s maliciousness, negligence, or greed, who are you gonna call? You can’t call 911 on a CEO and you might not have a lot of luck convincing the DA to bring up a case, but with civil courts everybody has the opportunity to have their case heard before a judge.
And let’s not get carried away with the talk of “out of control” fines. Even if they weren’t extremely rare and often pared down in higher courts, I’d still support them completely. If you’re suing a business, it’s not like you can send these guys to jail. Your only recourse is to hit them where it really hurts, the bottom line. Anyone who’s callous enough to suggest that winning a multi-million dollar judgment is “the best thing that’s ever happened” to a plaintiff, would probably never understand why someone would rather be poor than have an inoperable brain tumor, get all their intestines sucked out, etc. It may be a clich?, but it’s true. There are some things more important than money.
So back to John Edwards.
He’s spent his whole life fighting these kinds of fights. When he talks about sticking up for the little guy, this is what he’s talking about. I can’t wait to see Kerry-Edwards win this thing in a landslide.
34 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hear, hear. My father was also a liberal personal injury lawyer (oddly enough, with Edwards’ same haircut and color) and I had to defend him constantly to my friends, friends’ parents, and friends’ grandparents. Course, while I was busy redeeming his reputation, he was busy taking on corporations who ran roughshod over the little guy. He won suits against Texaco, Dow, and Southwestern Bell for poisoning their employees with chemicals that gave many of them cancer. He savaged companies like the laminating machine manufactuers who put a woman named Shirley’s co-workers on hold three times (thirty minutes in all) while the hot rollers sucked her left arm in, crushed it flat and burned it off past the elbow. Yeah, I’ll gladly vote for a personal injury lawyer, and I’ll defend Edwards to the teeth.
Comment by Amy — July 6, 2004 @ 10:22 am
An inspiring post, Greg, and impressive, in the regard that it actually got me a little fired up about the Democratic ticket. They should hire you as a speechwriter.
Also, a pretty convincing defense of litigation. I’ll just throw in one nod to moderation: Although “tort reform” is a political tool wielded with remarkable cravenness by Republicans, it is a worthwhile concept at its root. It’s extremely adaptable, in that one can make an excellent case for or against it, depending on which of the countless cases one chooses to highlight.
In my opinion, a valid course of tort reform would effectively limit frivolous lawsuits and outsize rewards, while maintaining the civil courts’ important role as a check on corporate and institutional power. Possible, yes. Likely, given the amount of partisan rancor surrounding the issue? Probably not.
Comment by Jonathan Scott Chinn — July 6, 2004 @ 10:23 am
I am salivating in anticipation of the Edward/Cheney Vice Presidential debate. Edwards made millions showing jerks like Cheney for the liars they are. Oh, Man. This is gonna be good.
Comment by Hieronymus Braintree — July 6, 2004 @ 10:53 am
I (somewhat) agree with the plea for moderation, but let’s face it, “we” are losing this entire political fight in almost every conceivable way, and that’s just gotta change. Well-reasoned discourse is disappearing, if it ever really existed. To that end, let’s hope that Dems can make as persuasive and strongly-worded an argument for the American People to hear. “We” have been wimps for far too long.
Comment by Ben S. — July 6, 2004 @ 11:07 am
There is a mythic component to the whole “America hates trial lawyers” mantra, y’know. Two words: John Grisham. America loves his novels and the spinoff films. America loves the feisty lawyer who stands up against the corporations during a trial, hammering his fist on the railing as he sways a jury to see things his way, which (of course) is the true, American way.
I think Edwards can tap into that easily. He’s a Grisham-like character, and American loves those heroes.
And what kind of heroes do the opponents of the trial lawyers have? Tobacco execs? Corporate polluters?
Comment by Mark Spittle — July 6, 2004 @ 11:46 am
Great post. I think it’s funny how “tort reform” is sold–the implication being that torts are an unreasonable way to keep corporations in line. But can you imagine if there was a Corporate 911 number and this stuff got dealt with more often in criminal court? The Repubs would really be howling then.
Comment by Amanda — July 6, 2004 @ 12:27 pm
Having been a nurse for 29 years, I can tell you there aren’t enough lawsuits. In hospice I see people all the time who are dying too soon because of neglect. There is nothing immoral about being a trial lawyer as compared to being the CEO of Halliburton. Bush reassured everyone when asked about his inexperience he would have good advisors, like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. Look what that got us. His debate will be the one to watch.
Comment by Becky — July 6, 2004 @ 1:01 pm
Punching this ticket
The Kerry/Edwards ticket is one I can live with. They form a nice balance of Old Money and New Money (of course, the poor are left out in the cold, but that’s hardly news). I still disagree with both of
Trackback by CaptainNormal.org — July 6, 2004 @ 1:54 pm
It was a nice post, Greg, whoever you are. I guess. I doubt I’ll vote for such a ticket but I doubt I’ll vote for Bush/Cheney either so, rest easy, armchair anti-capitalists.
A couple things…
Amy:
“He savaged companies like the laminating machine manufactuers who put a woman named Shirley’s co-workers on hold three times (thirty minutes in all) while the hot rollers sucked her left arm in, crushed it flat and burned it off past the elbow.”
I should give you the benefit here of attempting to bring as much pathos as you felt yourself to your anecdote but my immediate response falls along the lines of “what the hell does this have to do with anything?” They put her co-workers on hold? Well heavens to betsy, what a dreadful, and actionable, calumny on humanity. Umm…call 911, jackass? But like I said it was an anecdote and I have no idea what really happend. It just sounded pretty dumb when I read it. We surely must savage such villains.
Anynymous from the Washington Monthly:
“For all the noise Republicans make about trial lawyers interfering with the free market, most people prefer driving on tires that don’t explode, living in homes with insulation that won’t kill them, and raising babies in cribs that won’t strangle them.”
I’m not a Republican but I’m going to venture that most of them agree with you. However, nice 7th grade Lincoln-Douglas debate style straw man. Clever. I think the conversation revolves more on how these things are to be mediated, and the demand for them actuated, though I could be wrong in light of this noumenal cleverness, i.e., through government intervention or people not being bumbling dumbasses and figuring out how to exert economic pressure without these so-called “ambulance chasers” who parisite off of the machinery of prosperity pretending to do it for them (admittedly, doing it quite well sometimes, a subject for another time).
“They aren’t particularly bothered if it takes fear of litigation to bring these things about.”
Excuse me? So…morons need nannies to do the real thinking and valuing they should be doing themselves in not being a dumbass to know what they’re buying, how to use what they’re buying safely, whose services they’re hiring, and not letting 5 year olds near drains. This is surely new data! Who would have thought of that without the Altruistic Trial Lawyers?!?!?!? Ha! Grow up much? This type of thinking frankly creeps me out, nannies. Nice opinion you have of the average American though.
Mark Smegma:
“And what kind of heroes do the opponents of the trial lawyers have? Tobacco execs? Corporate polluters?”
Where has anyone ever said that? Can you prove that a single person believes this? What if they hate parisitic nudniks who more often than not do no more than get rich by bleeding “corporations” (read: the terminus a quo ad quem of evil) for people being dumbasses? I am an opponent of, not trial lawyers, but unabashed robbery and boring **yawn** fearmongering at the hands of the justice system in light of many of our recent civil decisions against CEO’s. Gotta love that Spitz though! What a righteous crusader! Oh, and my heroes aren’t parisites and losers who get rich on public jealousy enflamed by idiotic rhetoric designed to heap blame on the mere concept of private business. Although finding a businessman who is a hero would be a lot healthier, both materially and psychologically, and we’ve had some great ones.
Becky:
“In hospice I see people all the time who are dying too soon because of neglect.”
Hate to sound crass but where in any document this country has ever considered legitimate is it written that these people have a right to be sustained involuntarily by anyone else? Yeah, not enough lawsuits. That’ll sure solve it. Blame the wrong people and show millions of noble others exactly why they shouldn’t open a business that could help alleviate the problem. An incandescent logical performance. No wonder becoming a nurse is so easy. Go away.
Comment by Adam — July 6, 2004 @ 2:09 pm
I will have you know that “Smegma” is my middle name.
Comment by Mark Spittle — July 6, 2004 @ 2:26 pm
Of the Schenectady Chin Smegmas? ;) JK!
Comment by Adam — July 6, 2004 @ 3:24 pm
Adam, While free of typographical errors, i am afraid I must object to your obvious failure to read the comments of those you berate.
the drain was on a kiddie pool, thus, 5-year olds can be expected to be present.
If civil suits did not exist, we souldnt know of such items as detailed in the Firestone Comments, and if the initial amounts were not so large, how else could they catch the headlines to let us know to check OUR own tires??
I suspect that you are a master-debater, but not the linguist you wish to be.
Comment by mdhatter — July 6, 2004 @ 3:47 pm
Further, you do not hate to sound crass.
No, you sit down.
Comment by mdhatter — July 6, 2004 @ 3:49 pm
Adam–
1. Hospice doesn’t involuntarily sustain anyone, dumbass. It provides palliative care to dying patients. In fact, someone receiving aggressive treatment such as tube feedings is not eligible for hospice.
2. There are lots of documents stating a patient has the right to be diagnosed in a timely fashion and treated competently. I’ve seen doctors kill people without any consequences to them. Perhaps we should eliminate lawsuits in favor of neutral quality assurance boards who review every untoward outcome and assign monetary compensation proportional to the damage. It is unlikely you would find support in the medical community for such a fair and equitable solution.
3. If you are ever in the unfortunate position of needing hospitalization you would be well advised to keep your opinion to yourself. Nurses may not be as smart as you(indeed, few people are) but they know how to make your stay a nightmare. You may not respect nurses but you better fear them. On second thought, tell them what you really think.
Comment by Becky — July 6, 2004 @ 7:38 pm
In the words of my personal oracle Molly Ivins, John Edwards is great because, “He’s got the Elvis” –’nuff said.
Comment by Lib — July 6, 2004 @ 9:30 pm
Here we have a classic example of everyone’s favorite new parlor game, Blame the Victim! First, a corporation not only does something blindingly stupid, but covers it up to disguise the fact that they knew their product was faulty to begin with. Then, we deride the hapless consumer as a simpleton, unable to care for themselves. They should have known better! Evil governmental regulations obviously inhibit the free market! Demonizing “big business” makes you a communist; don’t you love America?! Loving capitalism means never having to say you’re sorry.
Comment by Ben S. — July 7, 2004 @ 10:25 am
It never fails, some Conservative always has to go after a trial lawyer for something…..It has pissed the hell out of me how Bob Novak has gone after Edwards for the past 2 years for being a “trial lawyer”. Yes, there are ambulance chasers out there, and sleazy defense attorneys but they are the minority. Most people that bitch about lawyers don’t have a clue about what a lawyer really does, all they hear is words like “tort reform” and “contingent fees” and go crazy. Do they even know what a tort is?
Corporations do bad things sometimes because the nature of a corporation is to make a profit. Most do this honestly, but some don’t. Some make unsafe products or provide unsafe services, and unsafe working conditions for its employees. Why? Because safety and oversight cost money, many times it costs more than out of court settlements with injured parties. Trial lawyers provide assistance to those people who are injured and guide them so they are not taken advantage of by the corporate machine.
Some plaintiffs and their attorneys file frivilous lawsuits (lady who spills coffee in her lap because she was driving with an open coffee cup, but sues McDonald’s because its too hot). This is a disgusting black eye to all of us in the legal profession. But most trial attorneys fight for the underdog.
Also, when Novak, et. al. attack trial lawyers, they are slandering prosecutors and defense attorneys as well. Prosecutors put criminals in jail, and defense attorneys make sure that prosecutors do their job correctly and that citizens do not have their rights taken away. Prosecutors and Public Defenders make little money in comparison to many other types of attorneys, yet they do perhaps the hardest job in the legal field, easily having the heaviest case loads.
Speaking of pay, most attorneys don’t make millions, most do not bill out at $500/hr, those are mainly corporate attorneys. Most personal injury attorneys don’t get paid unless they win in court or the client accepts a settlement. Either way, there are rules set forth by the ABA and each state as to how much they are allowed to take in fees. People that say that attorneys take 60% are full of it, that is illegal! Most contingent fees run around 30%, but an attorney is also allowed to recover costs of litigation….i.e. paying for document production, support staff, equipment, travel and witness expenses, etc. Rarely does a lawyer clear the million dollar threshold; contrast that with CEOs of corrupt corporations. I read the other day that some corporate CEO made a $25 million bonus for agreeing on the sale of a company!
So ask the Republicans why they truly fear the trial lawyer….it is because they are educated, articulate and fight for the little guy…..against the corporations……the haves and have mores….the elite….the Republican base!
Feel free to comment if you think I’m wrong, but bring some facts with you or leave the argument at the door!
Comment by mbf1978 — July 7, 2004 @ 10:47 am
To be fair, that case was legitimate. Here’s some of the details that the news left out when reporting that story :
Like most urban legends about “out of control” litigation, there’s a lot more to this story than just “Coffee is hot, dumbass”.
Comment by greg — July 7, 2004 @ 11:19 am
Thanks Greg for bringing facts, but I was only trying to illustrate a point with a case that most everyone would recognize. I was in no way trying to deminish McDonald’s responsibility (although if memory serves me, they appealed and won). I am all for personal responsibility, stupid people should not profit for their stupidity (i.e. woman who causes her baby to become brain damaged because she feeds him peanut butter on white bread, thus causing him to choke). There are plenty of cases out there like that, and while some lawyers will abuse their power in filing frivilous cases, many don’t. I believe the law is an admirable profession and not every lawyer is greedy, a sharp contrast to my view of most corporations where the bottom line is all that matters.
Still, thank you for providing the facts for others to see.
Comment by mbf1978 — July 7, 2004 @ 11:26 am
I have a question. Are you guys progressive ideologues or just armchair progressives? I ask because there seems to be two or three different non-serious dialogues here with me except two of them couldn’t possibly be with me for obvious reasons but appear more focused on some Republican Man you have evoke who holds one idea at a time in his mind–this idea being truly self-evidently idiotic on it’s face. I guess I can respond to this strand by saying I don’t condone corporations willfully foisting faulty products on the public just for a penny’s profit but I should have hoped you wouldn’t think I did, as an article of faith, or sprachethik. Guess not.
mbf1978:
I agree with all of what you say. It was well-tempered, there was no spittle (or smegma) flying about, and I wasn’t in fear of my life after reading your post (as I’m pointing to an earlier poster child).
That is, until we see this:
“So ask the Republicans why they truly fear the trial lawyer….it is because they are educated, articulate and fight for the little guy…..against the corporations……the haves and have mores….the elite….the Republican base!”
Yes, all Republicans (again, I am not one, if you must know; and go ahead and assert “counterops” or whatever lame blog term you guys memed during one tedious thread, like I care) fear articulate people because there are no articulate Republicans and their central tenets are linguistiically incompatible with humanity’s aposematic rhetoric. I guess since you can’t talk to them on this basis, you should just kill ‘em all since you’ve obviated the need to actually engage their thinking, if there is any to engage.
Also, can you prove that “the wealthy” are the Republican base? I’d like to see some statistics on that and more on what you consider “wealthy” though I don’t see any way this could help your straw man stay up. And, just so we’re clear, a corporation (recall: terminus a quo ad quem of evil) is just a legal arrangement between people to conduct business so that more people can have more of what they want. I don’t know how strong a stranglehold Noam Chomsky has on your grasp of this simple concept, but a corporation is no more than this until CEO’s greed gone wild effects a mind. Meaning, there’s nothing inherent in a business, corporation, LLC, partnership, S-Corp, or any other legal arrangement in that evil obtains. Do you agree? I think you meant to use the synecdoche of corrupt business imputed to all businesses, and I’ll leave it up to you to explain why.
mbf1978:
“Some plaintiffs and their attorneys file frivilous lawsuits (lady who spills coffee in her lap because she was driving with an open coffee cup, but sues McDonald’s because its too hot).”
greg:
“To be fair, that case was legitimate.”
And then you proceed to lay out in clinical summary how she was burned. So, let me get this straight. She ordered hot coffee brewed hot for optimum taste and it burned her because SHE SPILLED IT, therefore it was legitimate to sue them for millions of dollars? Is that supposed to be funny? Sorry, but, “coffee is hot, dumbass” really is what it’s about. We have bloody wars, economic malady, unemployment, the wittling away of our civil rights, a protuberant and distending federal government, and myriad other issues on our political platters and you’re trying to blame a corporation for not putting a Surgeon General warning that lady’s hot coffee? Gotcha. OK. That’s very in-touch with humanity’s striving for utopia. This is a good thread. I definitely think I’ll look into what the progressives are saying about important matters.
Public Caveat: Hot things burn. If you’re a dumbass and you let things you know are hot touch your skin, and unless the CEO of the company that made the product personally poured it on you, stop suing people for millions of dollars. And if you need help treating your burns, don’t let the nurse know you’re not a progressive.
You seem to mean well, greg, but, seriously, I’m outta here. It was nice meeting you all, even smegma boy and the would-be murderous nurse who doesn’t report others’ murders she’s witnessed. OK, except her. Nice company you keep, though.
Comment by Adam, or, "guy with a real name that's not his ICQ handle" — July 7, 2004 @ 12:37 pm
I provided a link so everyone could read the rest of the details of this case. To sum it up, McDonald’s coffee, because it was kept to hot, was unfit for human consuption. They knew this and had recieved hundreds of complaints, but did nothing about it. This is the kind of negligent behavior that caused this old lady to recieve 3rd degree burns on her genitals.
You’re right when you say the old lady was partially responsible, since she spilled the coffee. The jury agreed :
I don’t contend that frivolous lawsuits don’t exist, but that the vast majority of tem are either thrown out, reduced during appeals, or cases where there’s more than meets the eye.
Unlike many liberals, I don’t have a knee-jerk reaction every time I hear the word “corporation”, but it’s clear to me that most people whose sole motivation is to make money will cut any corners necessary in order to do so. For this reason alone, safety standards, mandatory labeling, and the civil justice system are essential to ensuring our safety. “Tort reform” advocates citing a few urban legends doesn’t do anything to change that fact.
Comment by greg — July 7, 2004 @ 1:01 pm
FYI Adam, I am a registered Dem. and I voted for Gore in 2000, and would have voted for Clinton in 1996. I am not saying that ALL Republicans are evil, nor am I saying that ALL corporations are evil. I am very friendly with many Republicans, who are also poor like me and in debt up to their eyelids (the result of growing up middle class and obtaining a legal education via student loans). And while I don’t have statistics and did not look up Webster’s definition of a corporation (although I am quite familiar with it via the classes I took on the subject and my relationship with a couple MBA holders) I was simply trying to defend John Edwards against those who slam trial lawyers for going after poor, helpless corporations….Corporations exist to make money and pass it on to shareholders, and they do that my making a profit, which means earning more money than it spends to operate. Part of operating costs certainly is legal defense……people sue corporations because they have deep pockets, versus the individual employee that may have caused a problem. Corporations are also extended vast legal protection (corporate veil, etc protects the corporation’s assets). People incorporate to limit personal liability….but that’s not the point I was trying to make.
I am not claiming that corporations or the corporate form are the enemy. Greedy people are the enemy….on either side of the courtroom. And they deserve to be sued by trial lawyers. As I said, some trial lawyers and plaintiffs are greedy, but I truly believe that most trial lawyers are there to help the underdog against those corrupted by power and money. That is why I like Edwards, and I can’t stand when people belittle his profession and his accomplishments…..and yes, many of them are Republicans, his political adversaries.
And News Flash, most CEO’s are Republicans, they are notorious for being the party of the rich, but no I don’t have stats to back that claim up…..I am a middle class working person, I don’t have the time to look up the median income of Bush’s voting bloc. Yes, Rural Americans are consistantly Republican as well, but the business elite are overwhelmingly conservative, or did you not hear of tax cuts for the top 1%? Do the research if you don’t believe me.
That’s all
Comment by mbf1978 — July 7, 2004 @ 1:10 pm
OK, I said I was leaving but you guys were nice enough to respond so I’ll get off some parting shots myself.
greg:
Thanks for your post.
“I provided a link so everyone could read the rest of the details of this case. To sum it up, McDonald’s coffee, because it was kept to hot, was unfit for human consuption. They knew this and had recieved hundreds of complaints, but did nothing about it. This is the kind of negligent behavior that caused this old lady to recieve 3rd degree burns on her genitals.”
1. I’m not going to go read it and, you caught me, I never planned to. Why? Because, viewed as dogmatic or not, unless some dude intentionally spilled it on her “genitals”, I don’t really care. I was looking for something qualitative to lead me to understand why you place the legal indemnification, not just the common sense indictment to act in accordance with paranoia towards (and I think you might agree with me this time) dumbasses who were unaware that coffee was brewed with hot water that may or may not be too hot to drink. I still don’t see any. It’s obviously a bias of yours and good for you but I’m not buying it.
2. What caused this old lady to spill hot coffee on her goodies was her spilling hot coffee on her goodies. If you know something’s hot, do you check it with your tongue? If you do, I think next chance you get, you should check how cold the flagpole is with your tongue too, becuase that’s equally clever.
3. In my opinion, I don’t see how 700 other complaints is admissable evidence. Were they by her? Then who cares? 700 out of how many? This makes no sense to me. I’ll ask a friend who’s a lawyer why exactly this is evidence but it is extremely biasing and loads the case as a class action suit in the guise of one stupid lady suing for her burnt genitals. You’re admitting class-action evidence in an individual case. I don’t like it.
“The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds’ coffee sales.”
How is this relevant? I smell a Robin Hood. If the point is they sell coffee and are pretty good at it, they’re right. If I follow correctly, though, the correct emotion to feel responsively is jealously and a fit of Marxian class consciousness to justify the penalty. It’s notions like THIS one that lead corporations to make the legal ramifications/faulty products calculus. And the calculus is not perfect and is duly liable to corruption, and we’ve seen it in all it’s abhorrency. I decry it as you do.
mbf1978:
Please notice that you’re launching missiles at targets that I’m not defending. I never attacked what’s his name though I did have some words with his profession’s fringe elements that he’s trying a little too hard to distance himself from. Hey, I like the guy, but I wasn’t even talking about him.
“Corporations exist to make money and pass it on to shareholders, and they do that my making a profit, which means earning more money than it spends to operate.”
Corporations exist TO make money, none could exist without such a motive; corporations exist BY serving people’s needs more efficiently than other businesses do. The profit motive isn’t an end in and of itself, consumption and alleviating scarcity are. Please feel free to notice that anytime.
“And News Flash, most CEO’s are Republicans, they are notorious for being the party of the rich, but no I don’t have stats to back that claim up…..I am a middle class working person, I don’t have the time to look up the median income of Bush’s voting bloc. Yes, Rural Americans are consistantly Republican as well, but the business elite are overwhelmingly conservative, or did you not hear of tax cuts for the top 1%?”
I sure do wonder why most CEO’s are Republicans. Could it be because Republicans are most convivial to the success and freedom of their enterprise of making a living seeking the American Dream by owning their own business on a relatively unhampered market? This awkward and untenable dualism between people/corporations needs to be dropped. We have better things to talk about. It’s propaganda and it’s divisive. I bet we all work for companies, incorporated or not. Is this fact sinister to you? Is this fact NEW to you? News flash? Tu quoque.
Second, I know who the tax cuts went to. But if you want to know who pays all the damn taxes in the first place, I think it’s YOU who needs to look it up. If you support progressive, grossly progressive, taxation, then fine, say so, but I’m not a 17 year old paper boy; I know who pays the g**amn taxes and who got tax cuts from Bush. It doesn’t hurt my feelings. I’m not a jealous person. I’m a person who respects other people’s success and doesn’t bias my class status by hatred and wrothful paranoia of those who are at this point more successful than me. But that’s just me.
See you guys later.
Comment by Adam — July 7, 2004 @ 3:16 pm
Wow Adam, I guess you have your mind made up about a lot of things,but please understand that I am neither spewing partisan rhetoric, nor trying to convince someone. Please do not assume that I am wrathful or spiteful of corporations, for I am not. I am merely stating my opinion about trial lawyers and just speaking from my personal knowledge (eduacation) and experience. Yes, we need corporations, they drive our capitalistic society, they manufacture products and employ workers. It is the corporation that brought us into the industrial age and made us the country we are today. I am just saying do not forget about the people that make the corporation function properly. The workers who make the products and the people who buy them. They need lawyers when they are injured by the corporation, or when a doctor accidentally amputates the wrong leg or whatever. That’s my argument, I am not spiteful or angry at people who are better off than I am, it is incentive to strive to make those millions, I am just saying to those who would say otherwise, don’t knock trial lawyers, and I am not trying to convince you, if you think that’s the case, please read my postings more carefully.
Comment by mbf1978 — July 7, 2004 @ 6:04 pm
Wow. It’s good to have an articulate and principled conservative around. Hope Adam comes back to visit again.
A couple of quick things:
1)”Corporations exist TO make money, none could exist without such a motive; corporations exist BY serving people’s needs more efficiently than other businesses do. The profit motive isn’t an end in and of itself, consumption and alleviating scarcity are. Please feel free to notice that anytime.”
I will. Please feel free to notice the existence of non-profit corporations, which do what corporations do, but without the profit motive. Lots of non-proft corporations do lots of great things without trying to provide a maximum return on investment to their shareholders. As do many privatly held corporations, since their managment isn’t always expected to put profitability over other moral and ethical obligations.
2) A movie called “The Corporation” is currently making the rounds of our nation’s independent theaters. I hear it’s a bit heavy-handed and one-sided, but since it deals directly with this subject, and even features interview footage with Noam “bete noir” Chomsky, I thought I’d mention it.
Comment by Joe — July 7, 2004 @ 7:55 pm
Lawyers have been out of control since the mid-1800’s, when they arrogated to themselves the power of self-regulation. Part of their justification was that they were officers of the court – members of the judiciary branch. Yet, in violation of the separation of powers, they serve in legislatures, where they enact laws to increase their stranglehold on the Republic. More later, if anyone wants to read it(see the June 2004 Atlantic, “Greed on Trial”).
Comment by Garthpool — July 8, 2004 @ 12:53 am
I thought that the “old lady who spilled coffee then sued McDonalds” case was frivolous too until I read a lengthy explanation of the facts in the Wall Street Journal. As we all know, it is not a paper known for caring about the little guy. I don’t know how difficult it would be to obtain but it is very enlightening. She told them numerous times it was too hot and the lid didn’t fit well. I seem to remember she spilled it trying to wrestle with the lid. She ended up with 3rd degree burns and skin grafts. All she asked for was payment of her medical bills which they refused. They were modest compared to the final tab. By the end of the article I was cheering her on. I am a flaming liberal but the abuse of the system makes me as angry as any conservative. This was a case where the evil corporation had it coming for their indifference more than their negligence.
Comment by Becky — July 8, 2004 @ 7:09 am
And the original point that I was trying to make Becky, which appears to have been lost in translation and ranting and raving about coffee and corporations was that sometimes it is not a bad thing for the little guy to win against the corporations of the world, and that people should pay no mind to those who attack John Edwards for his former profession. Still, people should know better than to put hot coffee in their lap, but both her and McDonalds were wrong in this case.
And to Garthpool who claims that lawyers are out of control…..I really resent that!!!! There are some bad apples in every profession, but until you go through the personal hell of law school, take it easy. Lawyers are officers of the court when they appear before a judge, but only the JUDGES are members of the Judicial Branch of Government. When an attorney is elected into public office, she must immediately disassociate herself from he practice of law, having no client contact or any conflict of interest whatsoever with the duties of the public office she now holds. There is no seperation of powers issue here. As for the rules that lawyers enact (in addition to laws), they are standards and guidelines for ethical conduct. If a lawyer violates those rules, they can be sanctioned, fined, disbarred or even face criminal charges.
Our Republic is not doomed due to lawyers, it was founded on the principles of law from the likes of John Locke and our Founding Fathers, who I might remind you were mainly lawyers. The practice of law is an honorable profession, and laws are the basis of a civilized society. That is why we have a Constitution and laws to protect our rights and lifestyle. Legislation is only a stranglehold when those who become corrupted by power abuse it (Patriot Act). In my opinion, every elected official at the Federal level should be an attorney, these Neo-con businessmen that we have now (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld) do not have law degrees, and Ashcroft must have gotten his out of a Cracker Jack box because he’s about as clueless when it comes to the law as the Man in the Moon.
Not all lawyers are greedy, and I pity you if that is what you think.
Comment by mbf1978 — July 8, 2004 @ 7:41 am
mbf, I will try to take it easy on you. I will provide the evidence slowly, in several installments, so long as there is any interest in the subject. (As I write, I hear the prosecutors of Ken Lay saying, as lawyers always do, that “You will be called to account, no matter how powerful, no matter how wealthy. No one is above the law”. Except the lawyers, that is. Has any lawyer filed a complaint or a lawsuit against the Supreme Court justices who were in the majority in Bush V. Gore? If any has, what is the chance that this action would be taken seriously by the legal establishment? No chance whatsoever. It cuts way too close to home. Some lawyers and other authorities have written books and articles explaining why Bush v. Gore was a lawless decision, but when will the justices be prosecuted for it? Never, under our present failed system of checks and balances. Note that the Supreme Court justices are the only attendees who do not rise when the president arrives at the Capitol to give the State of the Union address. At least they deign to attend. And Chief Justice Rehnquist, lose the hash marks.)
From Bonsignore, John J., et. al., “Before the Law: An Introduction to the Legal Process” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974):
“Lawyers had to overcome the popular concept of law practice as business in order to justify the status of professional self-regulation. Professional identification came through the codification of professional standards of ethics and the development of the concept that lawyers were officers of the court?charged with the social mandate to provide justice for society.?
This effort by the lawyers to become immune from the law began around 1870. I have only begun to make the case here. If there is still any interest in the subject, I will continue in later posts. To conclude this one, I quote from the June 2004 Atlantic article, “Greed on Trial”:
“Look, I’ve known him for forty years, and I think he’s a terrific judge, but the law is an industry now, not a ‘learned profession.’”
It has always been an industry, but if we forced the lawyers to live by that fact, they wouldn’t be in a position to rake off 40% for a contingency fee, or to commit their numerous other outrages against society.
(and mbf, there is an excess of people who are willing to study for a degree in law, so the hell can’t be all that bad, especially when they know that the rewards will be so extravagant.)
Comment by Garthpool — July 8, 2004 @ 1:43 pm
Oh man,
I’m not touching this one. If you think that all lawyers are wealthy, then I really do pity you. Also, if you think that all lawyers are greedy crooks because of a single article, and a like-minded quote then I am not going to dignify this with further response.
I have no response to the Supreme Court, I am sickened to death by the decisions of the Rhenquist Court from Bush v. Gore to Padilla and Cheney. The decisions are without merit and lack a fundamental understanding of the law or precedent. But they can only be impeached not prosecuted, and I cannot recall any time in history when any Justice on the Court was impeached. They are lifetime appointments and in case you did not know, they cannot be prosecuted! Here is some important text for you, from Article I Section 3 of the US Constitution:
Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Impeaching the Chief Justice for High Crimes and Misdemeanors would be difficult, but if you want to see it done, then I suggest you go to the following link.
http://www.petitiononline.com/insure/petition.html
Nobody is above the law, what happened in Bush v. Gore was wrong, it was unconstitutional, it was ultra vires, but it was not criminal. Hence the US Justice Department cannot go after the Supreme Court. If you don’t like it, then I suggest you write your Congressman….who is probably a lawyer and not above the law either.
FYI Bill Clinton was a lawyer, he was impeached for obstruction of justice, tried in the Senate, but did not get convicted. If he ad, he would have been removed from office. He was not, but upon returning to civilian life, he was disbarred – to my recollection.
In addition, I suggest you research the ABA Model Rules before you talk about 40% contingent fees (or read my previous post more carefully) or here’s a link that seems about your speed: http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/government/national/scourt4.html
And yes, the practice of law, like the practice of medicine or any other profession is a business, that was never my point, but please, keep writing as if you know what you are talking about. Or better yet, go to law school.
My original point still stands though, John Edwards is a good man, but your reply here just demonstrates how the Republican Slime Machine (go to Ann Coulter’s website) is already chugging along.
Comment by mbf1978 — July 8, 2004 @ 2:30 pm
i think that edwards is okay. the fact that the trial lawyer thing is the only thing they got to go after him with is pretty encouraging.
as to the debate that has eaten most of this thread: my wife is a legal assistant at a law firm that defends corporations from lawsuits. the kind where someone falls in a parking lot and goes after k-mart. that kind of thing. its silly, mostly. and her firm charges through the nose. and the corporations dont care cuz their insurance is covering it. and you know what? most cases settle way before trial. it’s a big waste. i have yet to see one case of knowing neglegence. you show me the case where the corporation knowingly put someone in harms way (and that includes serving coffe 100 degrees too hot so it sits longer and they save a few pennies) then the prosecuting trial lawyer instantly becomes an american hero, and no settlement is too high, if for no other reason than to show corporations they have to make money without hurting the public interest.
Comment by josh — July 8, 2004 @ 4:47 pm
Is it worth giving this a shot … ?
Adam, this might help you understand the case. At law, there is a doctrine known as “foreseeability”. It traces back to old english common law.
The idea behind “forseeability” is this: if you know that something you are doing is likely to harm other people, and you keep doing it, then you should be responsible for your actions. It’s really a doctrine of personal responsibility.
The defendant can and always does assert defenses, so it’s not as if defendants are thrown to the wolves in court. What’s more, various procedures at the initiation of a suit are designed to weed out frivolous cases. The defendant can also make what’s called an offer of judgement, for example, which means that the plaintiff is responsible for costs if he/she/it does not prevail in excess of the offered amount. But, I digress.
Here, the defense might have been something along the lines of, “she’s at fault because she must have known it would be hot and yet she carelessly spilled it”. Then you get into arguments along the lines of, “yes, but it isn’t reasonable for her to anticipate that coffee would be 180 degrees” and “McDonalds knows that its customers are likely to spill coffee on themselves — it happens all the time” (this goes to the question of foreseeability again), etc. etc. You get the drift.
It’s up to the lawyers to present evidence on behalf of their respective clients, and up to the juries to reach conclusions. Juries apportion the percentage of fault to both parties based on the allegations and supporting evidence. Unless the skill level of the attorneys is really out of whack, juries usually make fair decisions. The role of the judge is to ensure that both sides play fair, i.e. present their respective cases in accordance with a pre-established set of rules called the evidence code.
Does this explanation help you understand the case a little better?
Yes, there are frivolous suits, but I would not say they are the norm. Unfortunately, the business practices of some insurance companies encourage frivolous litigation. Insurers need financial predictability, so they tend to settle cases in order to get them off the books. This encourages some of the bottom feeder-types to file lots of small but questionable cases in the hope of extracting settlements. Generally, however, the system works the way it is supposed to. Most cases are legit, but this is not to say that the plaintiff is always right: there are always two sides to a story, and reasonable disagreement as to whether the defendant should be held responsible. That’s why we have a code of civil procedure, judges, and juries.
Attorney for 12 years on the defense side; now work on the front end of the law ;)
The law was cleaner…
CeceK.
Comment by ceceK — July 8, 2004 @ 8:53 pm
P.S. I highly recommend an excellent read that tells the true story of a complex class action suit (sounds boring, but’s it’s not, I promise!) that ultimately destroys the plaintiff’s attorney for reasons that might surprise you. The book is called “A Civil Action”.
Comment by cecek — July 8, 2004 @ 9:20 pm
mbf: ?The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.? (Nizkor website)
I did not say that all lawyers are wealthy. And, you have no reason to conclude that I am making my judgements about lawyers on the basis of one article and a quote.
Your charge that I am a minion of the wingnuts seems to be an example of Ad Hominem Abusive, but you have me stumped. I defer to the experts. Anyway, thanks for the laugh. Ann Coulter! Hey, I voted for McGovern. (You remember him, don?t you?)
Here is my installment for today:
“…the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” Thomas Jefferson
?The legal profession may do well to rethink the reasons for its existence. The private antitrust airline settlement tells you something is amiss. Because I could not do justice in recounting the case that gave the public certain ten to twenty-five dollar discount coupons while the lawyers walked off with $16 million in fees?? Judge Stanley (?Where were the lawyers??) Sporkin
Coming next, if I can fit it all in: The lawyers? oath, the Professional Code of Conduct, and Is a Lawyer an Officer of the Court?
Comment by Garthpool — July 9, 2004 @ 12:49 am