ThePopTort

Loser Perry Isn't Payin'

Now that Rick Perry is just plain ol’ Texas Governor again, a guy who catapulted into governance after a solid “C” “D” and occasional “F” college record, we can get back to discussing what’s important.  His hypocrisy.

Late last week, Mr. Perry (as well as some other candidates who we won’t bother with for now except to note "epic tort reform hypocrisy") lost his lawsuit against the State of Virginia’ Board of Elections over its ballot access rules. Mr. Perry brought this suit even though he failed to submit the requisite total number of signatures – 10,000 – so his claim was obviously going to get kicked out.

Who represented Perry in this loser of a case? Joe Nixon, that’s who.  Joe Nixon, observed Dallas Morning News journalist Wayne Slater, is a former Texas legislator who was, “the architect of 2003's sweeping tort reform law in Texas that curbed civil lawsuits.”  (We’ve covered the devastasting impact of that law, like here, here.)  Upon losing his case, Mr. Nixon said, "'I commend Governor Perry for his courage and tenacity in pursuing the case and seeking to protect the rights of Virginia voters [while decimating the rights of Texans.]'"  Pardon the poetic license.

But it gets worse.  If it’s one thing Rick Perry has made clear, it’s that he hates lawsuits.  Just hates them.  In fact, he hates them so much that he spearheaded and takes credit for a Texas “loser pays” law. In Texas, the idea is that if you file a lawsuit and lose, you are supposed to reimburse the legal costs of the insurance company for the corporation you sued, at least in some cases.  The British rule.  In other words, forget the American rule. Mr. Perry prefers that Texas be like England. 

Wayne Slater raised the question back in December:  “[I]f Perry loses, will he abide by what he supported in Texas and pay all the costs?” To which his spokesman responded that this wasn’t a frivolous case and besides, "'Typically courts do not award fees to a government defendant' (which in this case would be the state of Virginia)" but "'technically, the courts could require payment of defendant's fees in this case if they prevail.'" And then he’ll pay.  In other words, he’s not making any offers.

Not only that, Perry is the kind of states’ rights guy who says he really hates it when federal judges tell states what to do.  Except, apparently, when he needs to advance his career, in which case he’ll clearly ask a federal judge to tell a state what to do.  Perry spokesman again:  "'[States rights] is certainly something that the courts will decide. We believe that the people of Virginia have the right to choose among candidates and not be limited to just two because of onerous and, we believe, unconstitutional ballot-access provisions.'"

I didn’t notice an ethics course on Perry’s Texas A&M college transcript.  I’m sure they’d welcome him back.

Montana’s "Tort Reform" Hypocrite – Caught!

Well well well, as the Church Lady would say, isn’t that special.  A big class action lawsuit has just been filed by 38,000 Montana wheat farmers, cattle ranchers and others against former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, claiming that “the failed financial firm run by Corzine stole millions from their accounts to pay off its spiraling debts, and that Corzine's ‘single-minded obsession’ with making MF Global a big player on Wall Street led to the firm's collapse.”

Seems like the farmers had “’hedged’ their crop prices by placing millions in MF Global accounts but MF Global made a series of bad investments -- notably in European debt – [and] it began ‘siphoning funds withdrawn from segregated client accounts’ to cover its debts.”

Now that’s what we like to see!  No matter the outcome, it’s a great example of the civil justice system providing a level playing field so that farmers and small business owners can pool together and take on a big Wall Street fat cat!  In fact, who wouldn’t agree that everyday people, farmers and small business should have a level playing field when it comes to taking on Big Corporate America?

Their lawyer.  Apparently.

Mark Baker represents plaintiffs in this case (see him quoted here), and I don’t doubt that he’s all for this lawsuit.  But Mark Baker is also a Montana lobbyist and not just any lobbyist. He’s a lobbyist for the American Tort Reform Association, the DC trade association funded by large corporations that seeks to limit liability for its members, which we’ve covered many times, like here.

Not only that, Mr. Baker specifically lobbied for laws in 2011 written nationally by the corporate-backed American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC), (we’ve covered ALEC quite a bit, like here), which would have placed new burdens on injured Montana victims who bring and win lawsuits, as well as make it more difficult for the state of Montana to hire outside counsel, allowing it to recoup money from corporate wrongdoers for its taxpayers.

According to lobby report, Mr. Baker supported three bills for ATRA: HB 341, HB 342, HB 585:

HB 341 would limit the interest on judgments for injured victims, but not for corporations.  Here’s the ALEC model bill. 

HB 342 lowers appeal bond amounts.  Here’s the ALEC model bill.  This issue has been a huge one for ALEC as far back as we can remember.

HB 585 deals with contracts between state AG's and outside counsel.  It is based on the ALEC model bill.

This final bill, which ALEC has pushed hard, would interfere with the contractual arrangement between outside counsel and the state Attorney General office, which are generally underfunded and understaffed and can't hope to take on big industries without outside counsels' help. Their work often results in states recovering billions of dollars from corporate wrongdoers.  (We've covered this issue a bit here.)

So what exactly did Mr. Baker say when lobbying for these bills?  That he would like his clients to have their day in court but not anyone else?  That he wants his clients’ legal rights protected but would like to weaken everyone else’s?  Did he complain about people suing – except when he's the attorney?  Did he complain about trial lawyers – except himself? 

Well, nothing new here.  Move along.

State Constitutions and “Tort Reform” – One Big Conservative Yawn

With Iowa’s place in the election-cycle sun about to set, the intense media spotlight on the state will soon take another 4-year break.  Which is not to say that there aren't wonderful things to visit in Iowa, like the Field of Dreams baseball diamond  and the Herbert Hoover National Historic Site.  But I think we can all agree that these attractions are not nearly as entertaining as candidates falling all over themselves trying to prove to conservative caucus-goers who’s the real “constitutional conservative.”  I find this somewhat ironic in a state that instead of respecting independence of its judiciary, decided to oust three Supreme Court justices because they dared to uphold the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.  Nothing like moving forwards/backward into the 20th century.

But that’s kinda how it is with constitutional conservatives – sometime they like their constitutions.  And sometimes they don’t.

Take Arizona, for example.  There, writes the Arizona Daily Sun, “two state legislators want changes to sections of the Arizona Constitution that govern how much businesses and individuals have to pay -- and to whom -- when a jury finds they're liable for killing or injuring someone.”  Arizona, interestingly, has one of the strongest constitutions in the country protecting its injured citizens from politicians who want to strip them of their constitutional rights.  It should be noted that similar efforts were rejected by voters twice before, in 1986 and 1994.

This issue is also rising to the surface in Tennessee, where the “Tennessee General Assembly pass[ed] two laws explicitly aimed at overturning state Supreme Court decisions that lawmakers didn’t like” and they’re not alone.  Writes The Tennessean, 

In statehouses, 2011 saw more efforts to remove judges than any other year in recent history, according to Bill Raftery of the National Center for State Courts. Fourteen bills in seven states sought the impeachment of judges, including one that would have abolished the entire Superior Court of New Hampshire. In all but two instances, impeachment was sought simply because lawmakers didn’t like judges’ decisions, according to Raftery.

In Tennessee, there is a serious question whether last year’s law capping damages that jurors can award is constitutional.  The same is true for two other bills that, writes the paper,

Go so far as to tell the courts how to interpret their own procedural rules for resolving disputes. In the words of Mark Chalos, a Nashville attorney at the plaintiffs’ firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, lawmakers went beyond changing the substance of a law, which he said would be OK, and changed the rule lawyers and judges play by, which he said crosses the line.

“The Tennessee Constitution and Tennessee law is clear that it is exclusively in the courts’ purview to make rules for resolving disputes,” Chalos said. “There is a concern that this legislature is ignoring the constitutional limits on its powers.”

 Welcome back, PopTort fans! Should be a interesting 2012.

Doctors Who Sue

Doctors, you may be interested to know, are running to court like crazy these days, and who could blame them?

For example, last week the American College of Emergency Physicians (i.e., ER docs), supported by the Washington State Hospital Association, the Washington State Medical Association and the Washington Chapter of the Academy of Emergency Physicians, filed a lawsuit in Washington State to challenge that state’s new Medicaid rules, which limit Medicaid patients – i.e., the poor - to three “non-emergency” visits to the ER each year.  And that’s not all these rules do.  In order to make double sure these struggling families don’t frequent the ER too much, they’ve created a special definition - just for them - of what’s an emergency.  Here is what’s no-longer considered an emergency if you’re a Medicaid patient in Washington State: difficulty breathing, miscarriage, abdominal pains, and chest pains.  In other words, if you think you’re having a heart attack, get an appointment with your primary care doctor.  (Talk about “death panels.”)  In fact, over 700 diagnoses that used to be emergencies are now considered “non-emergent.”  

Then yesterday, the U.S. Supreme heard a case brought by doctors, health care providers and patients, challenging the state of California’s decision to cut reimbursement rates to doctors who treat Medicaid patients, and doing so without getting the federal government’s approval like they’re supposed to.  NPR’s Nina Totenberg described the case this way:

In 2008 and 2009, California cut [Medicaid reimbursement] fees by up to 10 percent, and the cuts went into effect without being submitted to the federal Medicaid agency for approval as required by law. Health care providers went to court, contending that the cuts were solely for budgetary purposes and did not meet the federal requirements for balancing money issues and access to health care. On the steps of the Supreme Court on Monday, California Medical Association doctors said they simply can't afford to take care of substantial numbers of Medicaid patients when fees are so low.

The problem is that they may not have a right to bring a lawsuit at all.  That's even according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Imagine not being able to bring a lawsuit in a situation like this, when doctors have clearly been wronged, and when the poor are going to suffer for it, right? 

If only the ER docs saw the same value helping poor folks get proper treatment like this as helping some of those same patients who are negligently injured.  For example, last November, we wrote about Florida legislation that would give ER doctors who treat Medicaid patients "sovereign immunity," and cap their liability for committing medical negligence against the poor at $100,000. 

For three decades, doctors and medical societies have pursued a relentless campaign to severely limit compensation for injured patients.  Yet when a managed care company or the government treats doctors unfairly, they head straight to court – in fact, to the U.S. Supreme Court.  This should be their right.  It should be patients’ rights, too.

Chewing Over Deterrence and the Tort System

Our legal system protects us all from injury and disease, whether or not we ever go to court.  This is because the prospect of “tort” liability deters manufacturers, polluters, hospitals and other potential wrongdoers from repeating their negligent behavior and provides them with an economic incentive to make their practices safer.  This phenomenon is not a fabrication invented by attorneys.  It has been recognized and documented by everyone from conservative economists like Richard Posner, to Rand’s Institute for Civil Justice, to William L. Prosser, the father of modern tort law.  (Just ask any first year law student.)

Imagine the amount of money the civil justice system actually saves the economy in terms of injuries and deaths that are prevented due to safer products and practices, wages not lost, health care expenses not incurred, and so on.  Weakening the tort system with laws like "caps" on damages lessens this deterrence function, makes corporations more unsafe and costs us all more money.  Pretty basic. 

To say this message is often lost in the current political discourse about the tort system is a bit of an understatement.  More like its been ground down, chewed up and spit out into something not quite recognizable anymore.

To wit, in Tennessee, a new law goes into effect this week that will "cap" damages and severely limit the legal accountability of nursing homes for abuse and neglect, which comes,

[J]ust a couple of years after the legislature in 2009 vastly reduced oversight of the 325 nursing homes in the state by eliminating regulations mandating that nursing home operators file detailed reports on adverse events affecting patients. Also eliminated were requirements that the state investigate those incidents. Officials said the change was needed so they could spend their time investigating more serious complaints.

Yeah right.  According to the Tennessean newspaper,

A report issued this year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office gave the state Health Department failing scores for its performance in investigating serious complaints against nursing homes. It said there was a backlog of cases that had gone uninvestigated, and it cited a staff shortage as a factor.

Really, the last thing Tennessee should have done is block the critical last line of defense against unsafe nursing homes – the tort system.  Yet that’s just what they did.  The paper reports,

The new limits on lawsuits could shut down yet another avenue of complaints — the courtroom. Plaintiffs’ lawyers candidly admit that the new caps will keep many nursing home malpractice claims from ever getting to court, in part because lawyers will be less inclined to take the cases. … Tennessee nursing homes already rank near the bottom nationally in two key areas of care, according to federal data. Without the threat of lawsuits, some attorneys and advocates think, it will sink even lower.

Meanwhile, in another area of the country, Michael A. Cardozo, New York City’s corporation counsel, is calling for, among other things, “caps” on compensation for people killed or injured due to negligence in city hospitals and for other city misconduct - in order to save the city money.

As we’ve noted, the largest portions of total payouts against the city have always been for police misconduct and horrendous preventable injuries – brain damage, blindness, etc – due to negligence in city hospitals.  Patient safety efforts in city hospitals remain abysmal and they promise to only get worse now that all hospitals in the state will no longer be accountable for causing brain damage in newborns. Why on earth would the city want to reduce payouts by cutting off people’s legal rights, further weakening the deterrence function of the tort system leading to even more unsafe hospitals, and to accompanying increases in cost and physician utilization inherent in caring for newly maimed patients?

And here’s the biggest irony.  Reports the New York Times,

… Mr. Cardozo also pointed to the city’s own use of lawsuits to generate revenue, as well as defenses that have helped the city to protect its finances.

The city, for example, won a $104 million verdict against Exxon Mobil for allowing a gasoline additive to infect groundwater in Queens, Mr. Cardozo said. It also won $9.5 million from Amtrak for failing to reimburse the city for the cost of fixing two bridges, he said, and $8 million from the state for improperly charging the city for Medicaid expenditures.

The deterrence function of the tort system isn’t the only thing lost on Mr. Cardozo.  His own hypocrisy seems lost as well.

Gotta Laugh.

Gosh, the news has been grim lately. There are shocking levels of poverty in this country and it is only getting worse.  SAT reading scores have fallen to the lowest level on record.  Some people cheer at the notion that someone without health insurance should be left to die.  Economist Paul Krugman tells Steven Colbert that our economy is “functionally like the Depression.” 

Actually, I think it’s more like our brains are functionally in a depression.  I know some people are thinking that a few Tanqueray martinis might be in order but I just heard about a better, healthier solution: just laugh!  Who knew?

There is a new study out about how “the physical act of laughing” itself makes us feel good.  Writes the New York Times, “The simple muscular exertions involved in producing the familiar ha, ha, ha … trigger an increase in endorphins, the brain chemicals known for their feel-good effect.”

We do our best at ThePopTort to find humor in a pretty dry topic – the tort system.  Bor-ing!  So we at least try to mock sanctimonious hypocrites whenever we can.

For example, well-know chemical company Dupont has made no secret of the fact that they dislike being sued or paying punitive damages for causing environmental disasters, which Greenpeace says “continue to jeopardize the lives of about 9 million Americans.”  For example, in 2008 we reported that Dupont would be heading straight to the appeals court to challenge a judge’s ruling that Dupont had engaged in:

wanton, willful and reckless conduct in its operation of the [zinc] smelter in the small town of Spelter, [West Virginia]...Among other things, DuPont was ordered to pay $196.2 million in punitive damages to residents who claimed the company downplayed and lied about health threats from arsenic, cadmium and lead in the air, water and soil for decades.

The company has also made it part of its political mission to push for laws that cut off the legal rights of everyday Americans.  For example, they are a member of the disturbing corporate coalition called the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance, whose sole mission is to eviscerate the legal rights of New Jersey residents.   

But today, this company took a little break from fighting jury verdicts and went ahead and got one for itself. In fact, some might even call it an eye-popping verdict - more than $919 million - after it sued a South Korea company for one of those life-or-death trade secret violations involving a Dupont fiber.  It’s the third-largest jury verdict on record for this entire year, yet still not enough for this profiteering company.  Now they want punitive damages too!

If hypocrisy like this makes you laugh, we are happy to have helped you today.  If not, well, there’s always Charlie Bit My Finger.

Tort Reform Hypocrite John Boehner … Here We Go Again!

It takes a special kind of guy (or former Alaska Governor) to make it on to our esteemed “Hypocrites of Tort Reform” list.  This is especially true for the “politico” brand of civil justice hypocrite: politicians who run to court to exercise their own constitutional rights, while at the same time championing severe liability restrictions for everyone else, and especially when it means immunizing their corporate cronies from liability for harming the public.  But to make it on the list twice in one year?  Why, that takes an extra special amount of awesomeness! 

Luckily for us, we are able to bestow such an honor today, thanks to Politico’s story about civil justice-basher and U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (see our Boehner post from last June)!  Here’s what Politico writes:

For much of his political career, House Speaker John Boehner has railed against judicial over-reach and the harmful effects of excessive litigating.

But while the congressman from Ohio and his Republican Party have a long history of bashing trial lawyers, the speaker himself has shown that he can be quite the litigator.

Not only has Boehner filed legal briefs in the state litigation challenging the federal heath care reform law, he has “hired outside lawyers to back the controversial Defense of Marriage Act.”  Oh, let’s see what else.  Turns out that he’s sued for money, too, as part of a “successful lawsuit in 1997 that stemmed from the ethics investigation of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), and he sued Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) in the case — and won $1.2 million in damages.”

Politico notes, “In both the health reform and gay marriage lawsuits, Boehner has essentially tried to make the courts a tool of how he operates as speaker.…But using the courts to protect legal rights and overturn laws runs counter to conservative rhetoric that Boehner — and his GOP allies — have voiced over the years.”  Ya think?

Actually, anti-civil justice rhetoric isn’t the biggest problem.  He’s also gone way out of his way to immunize the pharmaceutical industry from suits by patients who are killed or injured by unsafe drugs.

Sadly (and no crying!), here’s someone who did not make our hypocrite list today: conservative constitutional lawyer Randy E. Barnett, who wrote in Saturday’s Washington Examiner, “[t]ort law is at the heart of what is called the ‘police power of states'" so federal laws that limit tort rights, like Boehner’s pharmaceutical bill (which is buried in the federal medical malpractice bill, H.R. 5), are unconstitutional. 

Unfortunately, Barnett also notes support for state enactment of limits on the rights of sick and injured patients. In other words, with friends like these …

Palin's Not The Only "Tort Reform" Hypocrite - Welcome Mark Levin!

We’ve tried to point out the “tort reform” hypocrisy of Sarah Palin quite a bit on this blog and elsewhere.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that.  It’s just that beating up on Palin has become the past-time of so many people lately, especially since the “I’m a victim of blood libel” video, that we don’t want to create the impression that she’s the only right-wingnut “I’m gonna sue the media” “tort reform” hypocrite out there.  Surely someone else in that world deserves some special PopTort love.  Because who doesn’t love a right-wing "tort reform" hypocrite!

Well, we didn’t have to wait long.  Today, it’s reported that right wing radio talk show host and “tort reform” champ (here, here) Mark Levin, has threatened to:

[S]ue Chris Matthews and anyone else who he feels is accusing him of having helped foment to political violence.

The impetus for Levin's threat was a statement Matthews made about him on his Tuesday show. Matthews had cited him and fellow right wing radio host Michael Savage as examples of incendiary media figures promoting ugly rhetoric--something that has come under scrutiny in the wake of the Arizona shootings.

…

He then threatened to sue not only Matthews, but practically all of MSNBC's biggest hosts, if he felt they had made any allegations against him.  "I'm waiting for an allegation that is very specific against me because I'm going to sue," Levin continued. "...I'm going to drag your ass into federal court...somebody has to stand up to this. Somebody has to draw the line. Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough - test me."

Oh gosh, this is getting tiresome.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

New York’s Medicaid Trouble

On July 30, 1965, when President Johnson signed the Social Security Act establishing Medicare and Medicaid, he spoke about “planting the seeds of compassion and duty which have today flowered into care for the sick and serenity for the fearful.” 

But today, most of the discussion is about how to save money on the backs of the sick and fearful.  For example, recently we covered a new idea being bounced around Florida to let doctors off the hook for committing malpractice on the poor, i.e., Medicaid patients. 

Another thing happening is a huge federal Medicaid fraud lawsuit just filed by the federal government (here’s the complaint ) against New York City’s Medicaid program for:

"[C]heat[ing] the federal government after a 2006 change in Medicaid rules relieved the city of having to contribute to the cost of the round-the-clock care. In many cases, the government said, the city enrolled patients who did not need such services. And in some cases, the lawsuit alleged, the city approved in-home care for people who needed more intensive services, like nursing home care, but which would have required the city to contribute to the cost.

The lawsuit, which followed a whistle-blower’s complaint, also said the city ignored rules requiring recommendations from doctors, nurses and social workers before patients could be enrolled in the home care program, or sometimes rejected doctors’ findings that the services were not needed. The lawsuit did not say exactly how much overbilling the federal government believed had occurred, but it asked the court to award it triple damages.

Home care, which provides aides who help with housecleaning, dressing, bathing, shopping and other personal needs, is one of the fastest growing services covered by Medicaid, the joint federal-state health care insurance program for the poor."

So the feds want their money back and they want more people thrown into expensive nursing homes.  We’ll leave that discussion for another time, but for now it’s clear that reforming the system is a high priority of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.  Unfortunately, the way he’s going about it is highly disturbing.

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that:

Cuomo has put union leaders and hospital lobbyists in charge of a "Medicaid redesign team" and asked them to propose ways to cut spending by a target amount by April 1. 

"The governor was very clear in talking about not allowing special interests to dominate. But then he appointed a task force for Medicaid with the top special interests controlling it." said Judy Wessler, director of the Commission on the Public's Health System, a patient-advocacy group based in Manhattan. "This is why we're in this crisis, and he's just repeating it.

While Cuomo officials then “released an expanded list of about two-dozen members, including Medicaid Matters, a coalition of patient groups, and several city and local health officials, … Elizabeth Swain, head of the Community Health Care Association of New York State and a member of Mr. Cuomo's Medicaid team, said she was taking a wait-and-see approach. In an interview Thursday, she said she understood the governor's logic of putting 'key decision-makers in the same place as those who must change the way they see the world.'  But she added: 'I certainly understand why consumer and advocate organizations are offended. There wasn't even a tip of the hat to the ultimate recipient of these services.'"

What’s more, on Friday the Medicaid Redesign Team met for the first time - in secret! 

“How odd,” kindly wrote the Albany Times-Union, “just a week into an administration we thought was so committed to open government and changing the political culture that prevails at the Capitol.… What is achieved by doing the public’s business in private? … Where’s the harm in letting citizens — those who use Medicaid and those who pay for it — hear the many special interests on the panel debate why this service must go or that one must stay? … Take careful note of the concerns raised already by Lara Kassel, coordinator of Medicaid Matters, the one consumer representative on the panel. She fears the repercussions of shutting out the public."

We can only imagine what Lyndon Johnson would be thinking now....

Sprinkles of Civil Justice (With a Post Election Flavor)

So what do the civil courts have in store for us, post mid-term elections?  Looks like a dash of new state hurdles here, a pinch of federal obstruction there.  Let’s take a look at a few smidgens!

First, Oklahoma's new Attorney General-elect, Scott Pruitt, apparently accepted thousands of dollars in campaign donations from poultry industry employees, for which he was heavily criticized – and for good reason.  As soon as he was elected, he announced that he would consider stopping the state’s lawsuit against the poultry industry for causing “widespread pollution” even though the state “has spent millions of dollars arguing the case, and it is awaiting a judge's ruling.”

Also, in an article earlier this week, New York Times reports that the new Governor-elect of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, said “he planned to remove all ‘litigation, regulation, excessive cost’ barriers to businesses (declaring Wisconsin, on election night, ‘open for business!’)."  In other words, no accountability for wrongdoing whatsoever!  How attractive!  (Hope you’re paying attention toxic polluters, makers of unsafe children’s products, dangerous commercial truckers and hazardous equipment manufacturers.)

On the federal judiciary front, Ann Woolner writes for Bloomberg, 

Republicans have managed to stall more than a score of President Obama’s nominees to the bench so far, although they number only 41 senators, barely enough to keep a filibuster going.

With six more Republican senators narrowing the gap in January, the minority party in the Senate will have more muscle to use against the president’s choices...

Republicans have been loading the federal bench with as many conservatives as they can, while blocking as many Democratic nominees as possible.

Yes, I said Democratic nominees instead of liberal. The current list of 23 stalled Obama nominees includes 17 approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee without a whiff of controversy or even a no vote against them.

And when it comes to one of the hottest environmental issues today – greenhouse gases - a new study by “DB Climate Change Advisors (DBCCA), a New York-based eco-investment advisory unit of Deutsche Bank Group” concluded that:

The failure of federal cap and trade, the return of Republican control in the U.S. House and California's plans to move forward on that state's greenhouse gas law will probably inspire a new wave of lawsuits moving the climate change battle to the courts,

"It is probably inevitable that people are turning to litigation to fill the void left by the lack of legislation, and it is possible that the threat of court action will in some cases galvanize legislators to take action where before they had simply avoided the issue," DBCCA analysts say in the report, titled "Growth of U.S. Climate Change Litigation: Trends and Consequences."

And finally, the decision as to who will be Alaska's next Senator moves to the courts, with Tea Party trial lawyer Joe Miller now suing to invalidate a lot of Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s write-in ballots. 

Whoa, back up a minute.  Did we say "Tea Party trial lawyer"?  You betcha we did!  Specializing in all kinds of accidents including medical malpractice cases, Mr. Miller writes on his web site:

Have you been injured? If you have suffered serious injury as a result of an accident, you have probably been contacted by an insurance adjustor. Remember, insurance adjustors are in the business of saving insurance companies money, not helping you. Insurance adjustors are very skilled in what they do...

Every day, Insurance Companies convince accident victims that their injuries are insignificant and deserve little compensation. You should always contact an attorney before resolving your case.

Couldn't have said it better ourselves, Joe.