Bush and Judges....

[Zman]

From NYT:

Deborah Cook Is the Typical Bush Judicial Nominee — So Watch Out
By ADAM COHEN


The case before the Ohio Supreme Court looked simple enough. Thomas Davis, a forklift operator at an Ohio Wal-Mart, was crushed to death at work. When his widow sued, Wal-Mart fought hard — and its employees may have lied and destroyed evidence. When she learned of the possible deception, Mrs. Davis went to court to try to add an important legal claim. Too bad, Wal-Mart argued. She had missed her chance — even if it did trick her by lying.

As they say in law school, What result?

The predominantly Republican court properly ruled, 6 to 1, that Wal-Mart's legal defense had been bogus. Even if it wasn't, the court held, it would be fundamentally unjust "to reward a party for misrepresenting or destroying evidence." Only one justice took Wal-Mart's side. That justice was Deborah Cook.

She is now President Bush's nominee to fill a vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. Ms. Cook is no Miguel Estrada, the so-called conservative "stealth nominee," who is facing a Senate filibuster. Blacks are not rallying against her, the way they are against Charles Pickering, the Trent Lott protégé who lobbied the Justice Department to go easy on a convicted cross-burner. Disabled people are not lined up against her, as they are against Jeffrey Sutton, who argued a major case that weakened the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Deborah Cook, a 51-year-old onetime corporate lawyer from Akron, Ohio, may actually be the most utterly typical of the Bush administration's judicial nominees. Which is why, based on her judicial record, we should all be very worried about the future of the federal courts.

In eight years on the Ohio Supreme Court, Justice Cook has been a steady voice against injured workers, discrimination victims and consumers. The court's most prolific dissenter, she frequently breaks with her Republican colleagues to side with big business and insurance companies. Often she reaches for a harsh legal technicality to send a hapless victim home empty-handed.

Take David Norgard, a beryllium plant worker in Elmore. When he developed skin ulcers, dizziness and coughing fits, he suspected beryllium poisoning, but his company told him he was fine. It didn't tell him his blood tests showed he was unusually sensitive to beryllium — and that it had filed a workers' compensation claim on his behalf. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Norgard could sue, but Justice Cook argued that it was too late. The statute of limitations started running, she said, when he first suspected he was being poisoned, not when he learned his employer was lying about it.

Justice Cook's dissents in age-discrimination cases have taken tortuous paths to leave older workers in the lurch. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Michael Oker, an attorney fired by Ameritech, could sue for age bias. But Justice Cook disagreed, saying the 180-day period for filing a complaint began not when he was fired, but months before he left the job. The court ruled that Phyllis Ruth Mauzy, a 61-year-old office manager, could proceed against an employer who berated her in front of her colleagues, pressed her to retire and wrote in her final evaluation, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks." But Justice Cook would have thrown the case out before Ms. Mauzy appeared before a jury.

In case after case, Justice Cook has found ways to protect corporations pestered by sick or fired workers. When a bank argued that a jury's sex-discrimination verdict should be thrown out because the judge improperly "steered" the jurors to their result, Justice Cook was the only member of the Ohio Supreme Court to buy it. When a female Dairy Mart employee sued for psychological injuries after she was robbed while working alone, Justice Cook argued, in dissent, that the woman had no claim — a position a majority of the court called "absurd."

At Judge Cook's confirmation hearing, even the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Orrin Hatch, a strong supporter, felt a need to ask her why she dissents so often. It is not, "as has been implied," she said, "a matter of my particular bent or preference for any side of a case." She dissents, she said, when she disagrees about the law.

There were senators who were prepared to explore the matter further. But Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, in an extraordinary move, had scheduled a single confirmation hearing for Justice Cook, Mr. Sutton and a third nominee. Democratic senators devoted most of their question time to Mr. Sutton. Justice Cook was all but ignored. When Senator Charles Schumer asked for her to return for more questions, Senator Hatch refused, saying it would not be fair to Justice Cook.

The Bush administration has a long list of Deborah Cooks — nominees who are not stirring controversy, but who will radically reshape the federal judiciary for a generation. The administration is loading the courts with judges who rule in favor of discriminating companies, abusive bosses and employers who injure their workers and lie about it. And it is counting on the rest of us not to notice.

[Mike Wevrick]

I would like to see a more objective article about her before I make any further comment ...

edit: Here is an article supporting her: http://www.judicialselection.org/nominees/cook.htm

and one about the selection process:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=30306

[pittspilot]

And now the attacks begin on Cooke.

Here is a response by Law Professor Larry Solum. http://lsolum.blogspot.com/2003_02_0....html#89717693

BTW Zman, are you aware that we are just finding out the the lawyer arguing the governments case, on the side of NOW, in NOW v. Shields, is the current nominee under fire, Miguel Estrada.

In this case, Estrada argued, and won, that RICO should be used against anti-abortion protestors. He was assigned the case by the current SG at the time, Mr. Days.

Yes, I guess the arch-conservative can set aside his views, and take on those of his clients.

[natedawg]

I agree with Mike, definitely need a more objective look at things.

[mr_disco]

I think we will have to save it for the Supreme Court nominations. The ability to get circuit judges through, well, if you try to block all of them for political grounds, then you'll never get ones through when it's your President in office.

[Zman]

A co-worker of mine responed to this article...

Terrifying ... they're slashing and burning this country from top to bottom and most people just stick their heads further into their TV guides and watch the latest so-called reality show 'cause true reality is too much to deal with. Thanks for sending.



Unfortunately true....


A more objective article Mike? That doesn't just mean one that supports her.... .

Mr_disco - while the supreme court is the true worry, the number of appeals court, and lower, decissions that don't make it up there, make this kind of appointment just as important, if not more so.

[Mike Wevrick]

I didn't say the article I posted was objective, just that I wanted to see one.

The article pittspilot posted seems to be written by somone who actually understands the legal issues involved, unlike the NYT one, which is just a typical leftie hatchet job.

[mms4ba]

to the eXtreme

[Mike Wevrick]

Originally posted by Zman
A co-worker of mine responed to this article...

Terrifying ... they're slashing and burning this country from top to bottom and most people just stick their heads further into their TV guides and watch the latest so-called reality show 'cause true reality is too much to deal with. Thanks for sending.

That's a typical knee-jerk response from someone who just assumes anything bad anyone says about Bush must be true. That's actually worse than apathy IMHO.

[Zman]

Originally posted by Mike Wevrick


That's a typical knee-jerk response from someone who just assumes anything bad anyone says about Bush must be true. That's actually worse than apathy IMHO.

Except that this particular person is very well informed, and there is very good reason to question everything Bush does, that is, if you care about anyone, or anything, but yourself. We have already established that you are selfish Mikey, so I'm not surprised by your right-wing response.

[imprezton]

Originally posted by Zman
A co-worker of mine responed to this article...

Terrifying ... they're slashing and burning this country from top to bottom and most people just stick their heads further into their TV guides and watch the latest so-called reality show 'cause true reality is too much to deal with. Thanks for sending.



Unfortunately true....


A more objective article Mike? That doesn't just mean one that supports her.... .

Mr_disco - while the supreme court is the true worry, the number of appeals court, and lower, decissions that don't make it up there, make this kind of appointment just as important, if not more so.

I see you're from the Bay Area. I'd imagine all your coworkers believe as you do.


There is little sense of reality in the Bay Area.

[Zman]

Originally posted by imprezton


I see you're from the Bay Area. I'd imagine all your coworkers believe as you do.


There is little sense of reality in the Bay Area.

ohhhh..... resorting to that one? What a bold statement.... I hear that reno is the hub of reality

[Mike Wevrick]

Originally posted by Zman
A co-worker of mine responed to this article...they're slashing and burning this country from top to bottom

This is just a ridiculous thing to say. The Bush admin. is not that much different from previous ones. Anyone who says this is not "well informed." (Note: reading NYT op-eds does not make a person well-informed.)

My response was not particularly right-wing. I have no opinion about this judge and no vested interest in her being appointed.

[mr_disco]

Originally posted by imprezton


I see you're from the Bay Area. I'd imagine all your coworkers believe as you do.


There is little sense of reality in the Bay Area.

San Jose had 5000 show up for its antiwar protest, making it the biggest protest in San Jose's history. Think again about your labels.

[Outraged]

Originally posted by mr_disco
San Jose had 5000 show up for its antiwar protest, making it the biggest protest in San Jose's history. Think again about your labels.

You mean the anti-Bush, pro-communist rally?...The very people who overlook human rights abuses and genocidal maniacs, in the name of peace?...These people follow Stalinism and Che Guevera, people who have been guilty of more attrocities than Hitler himself.

[Outraged]

Originally posted by Zman
Deborah Cook Is the Typical Bush Judicial Nominee — So Watch Out
By ADAM COHEN

A bush hating liberal.

Ms. Cook is no Miguel Estrada, the so-called conservative "stealth nominee," who is facing a Senate filibuster. Blacks are not rallying against her, the way they are against Charles Pickering, the Trent Lott protégé who lobbied the Justice Department to go easy on a convicted cross-burner. Disabled people are not lined up against her, as they are against Jeffrey Sutton, who argued a major case that weakened the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Mr. Cohen, in his biased literary flourish, is spewing race-baiting lies in order to bolster his manipulative intent...Charles Pickering has been a friend of the black people in Mississippi, as attested to by the brother of slain civil rights leader Medger Evers, and battled the KKK, losing his re-election bid as local prosecutor as a result.

The only reason these leftists don't want conservative nominees in Judicial positions, is because they can't be counted on to distort the Constitution for their left-wing constituency groups and special interests...This is the bottom line.

[mr_disco]

Outraged, I'm sure at least one of the recovering alcoholics sitting next to you is a Democrat, and maybe one of them is against the war. Maybe if you'd realize that liberals are not worshipping Satan or some weird godless entity, selling baby parts, and plotting the communist overthrow of the government, then you'd be a little less noxious and appear to be less of a psychotic to everyone who knows you. Because guess what, if liberals were plotting a communist revolution, you'd be dead by now.

[Outraged]

Originally posted by Zman
ohhhh..... resorting to that one? What a bold statement.... I hear that reno is the hub of reality

We finally agree....Janet "Reno" is no hub of reality...really nothing more than another Clinton whore...From burning Christians at the proverbial stake (Waco, Texas), to covering up massive illegal Clinton/Gore fundraising from the Chinese Military, to sending Elian Gonzalez back to the slavery of Castro.

Oh, where is Mr. Cohen when you need him?

[Outraged]

Originally posted by mr_disco
Outraged, I'm sure at least one of the recovering alcoholics sitting next to you is a Democrat, and maybe one of them is against the war. Maybe if you'd realize that liberals are not worshipping Satan or some weird godless entity, selling baby parts, and plotting the communist overthrow of the government, then you'd be a little less noxious and appear to be less of a psychotic to everyone who knows you. Because guess what, if liberals were plotting a communist revolution, you'd be dead by now.

You are in some sordid company...Communists, NAMBLA, black racists (black panthers, NAACP), white racists (Robert Byrd), pro-abortionists and homosexuals all agree...War is bad, Bush is evil, and Saddam should be allowed to murder and plot genocide to his heart's content.

The question that nags me to no end is where were these "anti-war" protestors when Clinton was dodging the UN and bombing Serbia on much less credible reasons??...hmmmmmmm???

Sorta reminds me of Patricia Ireland (N.O.W), up in arms when Clarence Thomas was alleged to have talked about a pubic hair on his Diet-Coke, and referred to this is "sexual harassment"...But when Clinton was accused of pattern sexual harassment and rape????....silence.

[WagonMonster]

Originally posted by Outraged

We finally agree....Janet "Reno" is no hub of reality...really nothing more than another Clinton whore...From burning Christians at the proverbial stake (Waco, Texas), to covering up massive illegal Clinton/Gore fundraising from the Chinese Military, to sending Elian Gonzalez back to the slavery of Castro.

Oh, where is Mr. Cohen when you need him?

He was talking about Reno, Nevada, Professor.

[mr_disco]

Keep up the good work, Outraged, you're a big example why Blacks don't vote Republican. The Black Panthers haven't existed for 30 years. Why don't you complain about the Symbionese Liberation Army while you're at it. And the NAACP worked for a hundred at desegregating institutions, is that why they're racist?

[Outraged]

Originally posted by Zman
The case before the Ohio Supreme Court looked simple enough. Thomas Davis, a forklift operator at an Ohio Wal-Mart, was crushed to death at work. When his widow sued, Wal-Mart fought hard — and its employees may have lied and destroyed evidence. When she learned of the possible deception, Mrs. Davis went to court to try to add an important legal claim. Too bad, Wal-Mart argued. She had missed her chance — even if it did trick her by lying.

Boy he sure does lay out the ambulance chasers perspective quite aptly...Here is the other side...

Wal-Mart involved the intersection of two legal doctrines, the tort of spoliation of evidence and the doctrine of res judicata (or claim preclusion). Both require a bit of explanation.

The Spoliation Tort
When a party to a lawsuit destroys evidence, the legal system has a variety of techniques for responding. There are criminal statutes that forbid the obstruction of justice or evidence tampering. During the discovery process, judges can sanction the destruction of evidence. At trial, a judge can instruct a jury that it may draw an inference (called the spoliation inference) to the effect that the party who destroyed evidence did so because it would have hurt their cause. In 1984 in the case of Smith v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court added another legal doctrine, an independent tort action that allows that victim of spoliation to sue for damages based on their opponent's destruction of evidence. The spoliation tort was the basis for the plaintiff's claim before the Ohio Supreme Court in Wal-Mart.

Res Judicata
The doctrine of res judicata (latin for "a thing decided") is part of the law of res judicata. Although res judicata is certainly technical, it is not a "mere technicality." Without this doctrine, lawsuits could continue forever. A party who lost the first time could simply sue again. A party who won, could continue to sue again and again, seeking new damages each time. The doctrine of claim preclusion is absolutely essential for a well functioning legal system, not just for powerful reasons of efficiency, but also because it would be horrendously unfair to defendants if they could be sued again and again on the same claim.

[Outraged]

Originally posted by mr_disco
Keep up the good work, Outraged, you're a big example why Blacks don't vote Republican. The Black Panthers haven't existed for 30 years. Why don't you complain about the Symbionese Liberation Army while you're at it. And the NAACP worked for a hundred at desegregating institutions, is that why they're racist?

I stand corrected, they have splintered off into the "New" Black Panther Party. Along with the National Black United Front and the New Black Muslim Movement.

As for the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA)...the violent left-wing militia...ex-President Jimmy "the peanut" Carter lobbied Bill "pardons for sale" Clinton to pardon Patty Hearst...she received executive clemency.

What do you get when you cross Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter???...North Korea.

[WagonMonster]

Originally posted by Outraged
What do you get when you cross Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter???.

The SRT-4

[Outraged]

Originally posted by mr_disco
Keep up the good work, Outraged, you're a big example why Blacks don't vote Republican.

This is what is great about the hate-whitey class-warfare race-baiting tactics of the left...They are very effective...You have your "useful idiots" tell blacks that they are suppressed, tell them that if they vote Republican "another black church will burn", offer them a handout and keep them dependent....Guess what?...They vote Democrat...Democrats seem to think blacks are too stupid to make it on their own, and therefore keep them on the plantation of welfare dependency and keep them stupid on failing public schools.

And the NAACP worked for a hundred at desegregating institutions, is that why they're racist?

Don't forget that it was the Republican party who freed the slaves, passed Civil Rights Act of 1964, and died in massive numbers to free the slaves.