ThePopTort

Is Congress Worse than Trump?

In yIn yesterdays’ Daily 202 from the Washington Post, James Hohmann wrote, “The American people are more focused on the daily drama emanating from the reality television presidency than they are substantive policy issues. Meanwhile, the administration is making meaningful moves every day — and we’re covering them — but these stories are often overlooked in favor of distracting shiny objects."

Yet I have an even more alarming perspective. It’s not just the administration’s daily moves. Check out what Congress is doing. No one’s paying any attention – at all.

This morning, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee began voting on a bunch of terrible bills, some of which were just introduced this week, which would upend centuries of law and/or make it more difficult for people who have been harmed to have their cases fairly heard and/or stop courts from blocking Trump’s illegal actions. Yup, all that just this morning!

Behind it all is the soon-to-be-ex- (thank goodness) Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, a Republican who has represented Virginia’s 6th congressional district since 1993. Last year, Goodlatte rammed through his committee five bills that together, strip away major legal rights from everyday Americans. He was so fixated on making sure these bills passed with the greatest amount of harm to victims, that he forced the committee to re-vote on an amendment - after he lost - that would have prevented his legislation from violating state constitutions. Last month, Goodlatte's son Bobby “blasted” his own father “for his role in ruining [FBI agent Peter] Strzok’s career, tweeting, “I’m deeply embarrassed that Peter Strzok’s career was ruined by my father’s political grandstanding. That committee hearing was a low point for Congress. Thank you for your service sir. You are a patriot.” Bobby also urged voters to elect a Democrat to replace his  father.

So let’s just say, today’s hearing isn’t all that surprising.  As explained by a number of public interest groups who literally overnight turned in a letter of opposition to four of the bills, here’s what the House Judiciary Committee majority, chaired by Mr. Goodlatte, wants to do:

• Ban nationwide injunctions – the kind of injunctions issued by federal judges to slow down or prevent harm caused by some of the more destructive policies of the Trump Administration.
• Radically change the law of diversity jurisdiction, forcing a vast number of state cases into federal court that have no business being in federal court. It’s essentially a corporate forum-shopping bill since corporate defendants prefer to litigate in federal court.
• Break up the Ninth Judicial Circuit at the behest of corporations and the right, even though everyone from the American Bar Association to the judges themselves object to this.

We’re tired of covering this type of dumb, destructive and corrupt policy-making. Today is primary election day in New York State (home of ThePopTort!), and we’re reminded of our message to you this fall: get out there on November 6 and vote!

Big Business, "Tort Reform," Money, and Judicial Elections - Scary Stuff

With Halloween tomorrow, there’s a lot out there to be scared of.  And here’s one more thing.  A great article out this week in Mother Jones, discusses something we’ve been talking about, and scared of, for years…  money and influence in judicial elections.  See here, and some of our earlier coverage here, and here. And, importantly, the role that "tort reform" and the highly partisan industry lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have played in judicial elections for years.  

With Election Day less than a week away, we’re happy to see people worried about big businesses influence over these elections.  Mother Jones notes, “the Chamber spent $10 million on judicial races in 2000 alone.  It pumped $4.4 million into Ohio’s Supreme Court election – the largest expenditure from a single source on a court race in U.S. history” after the Court struck down the state's Draconian tort reform law.  And they didn’t stop there.  It poured “tens of millions into races in Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, and Wisconsin” over the next few years, pouring money into races to oust judges that don’t agree with, and support, their pro-business, pro-tort “reform,” anti-consumer agenda.

Consider the example of State Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler.  In 2008, the first African American Supreme Court Justice in Wisconsin was also the first sitting justice to lose his seat on that court in 40 years:

Butler's opponent, Michael Gableman, had been showered with campaign donations from business leaders, who were keenly aware of Butler's role in two decisions. One was a 4-3 ruling to strike down a $350,000 limit on so-called pain-and-suffering damages in malpractice suits. The other held that if an individual harmed by lead paint exposure couldn't identify the producer, then multiple paint companies could be held liable under a legal theory known as “risk contribution.”

 Butler was targeted because he ruled in favor of consumers. 

 This is nothing new.  In fact, according to a 2013 study from the American Constitution Society and Emory University, points out that unlike other groups that contribute to state judicial candidates, business groups are focused solely on this issue:

Business groups usually have an unambiguous agenda in most state races – to help pro business, pro-tort reform judges get elected.  Indeed, tort reform has become the primary issue in most state judicial races. 

So the Chamber is flooding money into these elections to keep victims from holding corporations accountable for their misconduct and, unfortunately, their influence is dominating one area of these campaigns.  So far, this election cycle, state Supreme Court candidates, political parties, and special interest groups have spent $9.1 million on TV ads.  The gross majority of that special interest money is coming from big business.  “In 2006 business groups were responsible for over 90 percent of the television advertising paid for by interest groups.”  And their dominance over television ads is only increasing. 

 Their efforts are working:

It is estimated that the pro-business U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $100 million between 2000 and 2003 on judicial campaigns.  Most of these efforts were successful.  Between 2000 and 2004, 36 of the 40 judges whom the Chamber supported were elected.

And, worse still, once these judges get elected, they do exactly what big business wants and side with Corporate America over average Americans…

The more campaign contributions from business interests the justices receive, the more likely they are to vote for business litigants when they appear before them in court.  Notably, the analysis reveals that a justice who receives half of his or her contributions from business groups would be expected to vote in favor of business interests almost two-thirds of the time.

That’s a lot scarier than Halloween!