Tag: law (page 2)

His giving nature is what inspires me to be all that I can be. Even today Barry O put Mother Teresa to shame when he signed the credit card bill into law. In case you missed the coverage, his halo radiantly floated above his head, while the delightful harps played in the background as the rays from heaven shined down to gracefully silhouette his toned features as he delicately signed each letter of his name with a new pen. His generosity outpoured as he carefully designated each pen to a specific individual who aided in the writing of the credit card bill so they would have a token to cherish and pass down to generations.

But the blessings we have received from Barry are much more than pens to treasure. We Americans have received the charming gift of debt and now it seems with new emission standards we will also receive the gift of death, well at least 800 more Americans a year to be specific.

What most people are not aware of are the thousands of decisions made every day by lower courts. These decisions have a profound impact on our courts, our businesses, our institutions, and our own responsibility and accountability. These decisions magnify the critical nature of selecting judges to sit on the bench. One such case was recently decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which covers Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan.

In Gass v Marriott Hotel Services, the Sixth Circuit reinstated a lawsuit filed by two women against Marriott and an exterminating company, in which the women claimed that they were injured by pesticides sprayed in their Maui hotel room after they complained about seeing a dead cockroach.

This case is especially troubling because of the following:

Thus, there was no evidence that the plaintiffs were actually exposed to any harmful chemicals or that the exposure was at a level that is harmful. As a result, there is no way the plaintiffs could establish that exposure to a chemical actually caused them any harm. Nevertheless, in a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit found there was enough to send the case to trial.

Of course, this result was a foregone conclusion. The majority consisted of Judges Eric Clay and Karen Nelson Moore, both appointed by Bill Clinton, while the dissenter, Chief Judge Danny Boggs, was appointed by President Reagan.

This case and others like it weaken evidentiary requirements, making it easier to file and pursue marginal, even frivolous, lawsuits. This increases the expense of doing business, will drive up insurance costs and prices, and further burden our courts while making it more difficult to get rid of groundless claims.

This is nothing new, of course -- read The Litigation Explosion or anything else by Walter Olson. It illustrates, however, the continuing crisis in our courts, driven by the tension between the rule of law and the political desire to bend (or ignore) the rules to promote a social agenda.

Just another reason why judges -- and votes -- matter.