Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Tuesday morning

1. Rumpole and the NYTimes take on Supreme Court specialists. I usually really like Adam Liptak, but I think he (and Rumpole) got this one all wrong. Take the example they cite in the lead to the article:

Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, deported to Mexico, had run out of options. A federal appeals court said he could not return to the United States to live with his American wife and son. And his lawyer did not have the expertise or money to pursue the case further.

Then the cavalry arrived. Leading lawyers from around the country, sensing that the case was one of the rare ones that might reach the Supreme Court, called to offer free help. Mr. Fernandez-Vargas’s immigration lawyer was delighted, and he chose a lawyer from a prominent firm here.

But there was a catch, and then a controversy. The catch was that the Washington lawyer, David M. Gossett, would take the case only if he could argue before the Supreme Court himself.

The controversy was that groups representing immigrants were furious, suspicious of the new lawyer’s interest in the case and fearful of a Supreme Court ruling that would curtail the rights of immigrants nationwide.

Indeed, Mr. Gossett faced a barrage of hostile questions from the justices, and in June 2006 the court ruled against his client, 8 to 1. The ruling wiped out decisions in much of the nation — notably from the federal appeals court in California — that had favored immigrants.

So let me get this straight -- Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, having lost and waiting to get deported after serving a federal prison sentence, should not fight his case and lay down because it might not be good for others. Please. That's not how our adversary system works. Gossett was fighting for his client and was able to get cert granted! Instead of being villified by immigration groups and a front page article in the New York Times, he should be getting kudos.

This morning the Court will hear argument on whether vaccine makers should have immunity:
At issue is whether a no-fault system established by Congress about 25 years ago to compensate children and others injured by commonly used vaccines should protect manufacturers from virtually all product liability lawsuits. The law was an effort to strike a balance between the need to provide care for those injured by vaccines, some of them severely, and the need to protect manufacturers from undue litigation.

Under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, such claims typically proceed through an alternative legal system known as “vaccine court.” Under that system, a person is compensated if their injury is among those officially recognized as caused by a vaccine. That person, or their parents, can choose to reject that award and sue the vaccine’s manufacturer, but they then face severe legal hurdles created by law to deter such actions.

The case before the Supreme Court is not related to autism. But the biggest effect of the court’s ruling, lawyers said, will be on hundreds of pending lawsuits that contend a link exists between childhood vaccines and autism. Repeated scientific studies have found no such connection.

In other news, everyone is just SHOCKED about the Judge Jack Camp story.

And Justice Kagan is sporting conservative robes.


Rumpole said...

I'm not against Supreme Court Fancy Pants specialists soliciting cases. Just lets call a spade a spade. What they are doing is no less reprehensible than me calling Buju's family to see if they're happy with you. I'm with the CJ on this one: i don't go to doctors who solicit me to be their patient.

Anonymous said...

Victory - A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

Anonymous said...

While the world (at least the intellegent world) applauds the state's decision not to pursue an appeal making it illegal to preclude gays and lesbians from adopting children from state care, Pam Bondi stays quiet.

If elected, Repubican attorney general candidate Pam Bondi vowed to appeal the 3rd DCA all the way to the Florida Supremem court.

What is her position now?

Will she change her stance and be the great non-politician outsider everyone makes her out to be? Or will she admit her mistake, admit that having no political experience is in fact a liability
when having to make critical judgment calls?

Pam Bondi is too extreme to be our attorney general.

Pam Bondi is the inferior candidate in this race.

Pam Bondi has no, none, nada, nine, poltiical experience.

As lawyers, we should tell our friends and family, our staff and anyone else who cares to listen to us that the state of Florida deserves better than Pam Bondi.

Vote for Dan Gelber. Vote for Florida.