Why People Tell Lawyer Jokes
Posted on 09/18/2003 9:13:30 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
The day before the second anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a federal judge in New York ruled against dismissing a lawsuit brought against Boeing and the Port Authority by victims of the attack. His actions remind us how far we've gone in becoming a nation ruled by lawyers and judges, and not by the people and their elected representatives.
Federal judge Alvin Hellerstein began his opinion by saying that "the injured, and the representatives of the thousands who died from the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, are entitled to seek compensation."
Well, that's true, but the question is: from whom? In the aftermath of the attacks, Congress created the Victim Compensation Fund. The goal of the Fund is to compensate victims while discouraging potentially ruinous litigation.
Not surprisingly, the trial bar didn't like what Congress did. So it brought a suit against Boeing and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the World Trade Center. It claimed that the defendants had failed to adequately protect against the risk that someone might hijack an airliner and crash it into a tall building causing physical injury and death. Could you imagine a judge buying that?
Hellerstein did, ruling that such a risk was "foreseeable," and has now allowed this lawsuit to proceed. This ruling paves the way for thousands of September 11-related lawsuits. Not only will this delay the ultimate resolution of the cases but, in most instances, it will leave the plaintiffs with less than they would have received from the Fund -- though the lawyers will get a lot more.
If Hellerstein's ruling is allowed to stand, and the plaintiffs prevail, the measures that aircraft manufacturers and developers might have to take to protect themselves from liability are the stuff of black comedy: self-destruct buttons in the cockpit, a limit on building height, or go out of business.
This is precisely what Congress sought to prevent. Following the unprecedented events of September 11, Congress and the president looked for a response that balanced the competing interests affected by the attacks. They sought a way to compensate victims without setting precedents that would make it nearly impossible for airlines and other businesses to operate. Nobody got everything they wanted, but that is how representative government works.
Or at least is supposed to work. For nearly three decades now, the courts, both federal and state, have been disregarding the democratic process.
Most Christians are aware of how judicial activism has worked in areas like abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues. But these areas are only part of a larger story: that is, how what the founders considered the "least dangerous branch" of government has come to set the agenda for American life. Allowing these lawsuits in New York is just the latest in a long line of examples of judicial overreaching. And this is one good additional reason why many of us are supporting the marriage amendment to the Constitution. It will begin a very important, necessary process in American life -- rolling back the courts and reestablishing the ability of Americans to govern themselves through their elected representatives.
Tort and judicial reform is about as interesting to me as watching paint dry, and I'm sure that it's the same for many of you. Still, we must tame this tiger now, or it will eat our children and children's children.
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." --John Adams
It is time for us to study, and prosecute, the war within our culture, to overcome the tyranny of the courts and the unbridled avarice of our neighbors.
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I am not a fan of the tort suit. But I am less a fan of the victims' compensation fund.
Why People Tell Lawyer Jokes
James Madison wrote the following in Federalist 45. The emphasis is mine: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.
Did these people die in a war action against the United States?
Yes. That alone is enough to justify federal compensation.
Is it the United States government's fault that these attacks happened?
Most likely, yes. We will never know for sure because we would need a crystal ball to see if a non-Clintonized intelligence apparatus could have prevented it, but it is my firm belief that 9/11 is the result of the negligence of the previous administration. Due to security concerns, the chances this would be proven in court are slim.
I suppose there is some room for debate on whether the victims of this war action need to be compensated (and certainly, the amount is extreme in most cases) but there is no doubt that it is within the federal purview. Also, characterizing it as insurance only counts if it is insurance; insurance doesn't pay for war damages, so only the government could make good.
Let's not quibble about federal war expenditures. Save your ammo for pork and income redistibution schemes.
Well, just look at what's been done to prevent another attack.
Improve the cockpit door.
Whatever happened to 'comforting the afflicted' rather than turning it into just another moneygrubbing scheme for the lawyer class and a way for judges to demonstrate their power?
This is probably true but very unfortunate. One of the reasons we lose jobs to foreign countries is the sky-high insurance premia, which are high, in turn, because of the ridiculous litigation and huge awards. We all are paying these awards, and most people do not know that.
I do not blame Bush for the loss of jobs as many do here on FR --- it's the function of the rest of the economy --- but I do blame him for the lack of two immediate reforms: immigration and tort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.