Category: judiciary

Categories
judiciary responsibility

Pump Down the Volume

Can somebody sue you for making something wonderful that might hurt somebody else who uses your product carelessly?

Of course. This is America, land of the Bill of Rights, mom, apple pie, Chevrolet . . . and outrageous litigation.

Some suits are sound, sure. But, on top of those you’ve got your money-grubbing frivolous actions, pushed by freeloaders and fronted by freebooters, er, lawyers. But at least these folks don’t always win. That’s where I’ve got some good news to pass along: A federal court has slapped down ludicrous litigation against Apple Computer.

Apple makes the popular iPod media player. Litigants Joseph Birdsong and Bruce Waggoner alleged that Apple is culpable for “possible hearing loss” resulting from iPod use, thanks to allegedly improper earbud design.

Birdsong and Waggoner don’t assert that their own eardrums had burst, or even that the ears of others had suffered. In fact, the ruling against them notes: “At most, the plaintiffs plead a potential risk of hearing loss. . . .”

Obviously, when your own careless conduct causes you harm, you alone are responsible. Turn  your stereo volume to the max and press your ear against stereo speakers. It isn’t the stereo maker’s fault when your eardrums pop.

By the way, iPods also have volume control.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency judiciary

The Judges, the Lawyers, and the People

In legal circles, when folks think of Missouri, they think of the “Missouri Plan.” Seventy years ago, Missouri instituted a new method of selecting judges, especially the judges that sit on the state’s supreme court. The plan was copied by many other states.

It is beloved by the insiders.

A few years ago, I wrote at Townhall.com: “[T]he Missouri Bar has something of a lock on the whole process. . . . It’s supposed to be non-partisan. Bottom line is that lawyers are in control.”

A judicial commission controlled by the state bar association picks the judges that the governor must then pick from — with the bulk of the commission’s work done behind closed doors.

Missourians are shocked when informed how the process works. So are folks in other states that have adopted the Missouri Plan. It isn’t transparent and it puts key decision-making on judges in the hands of an unelected special interest.

But things may be looking up. A group called Better Courts for Missouri submitted paperwork to start a new petition. The group aims to gather enough signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010, to open up the system, make it more transparent.

Legislative attempts to change the system have failed. Generally, politically powerful lawyers are for a plan that lets lawyers have the biggest say.

Well, now they are up against competition. The people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary

I Don’t Rule the World

Last week I had some fun with Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s comment to the effect that she was able to make better judicial decisions than a white male because of her experiences as a Latina.

I don’t take offense “as a white male.” I object as a rational human being.

But while Judge Sotomayor continues to catch flak, I must say, bashing white males has become rather commonplace.

Being rational, not so much.

For instance, Kathleen Parker, a usually reasonable columnist, had this to say in defending Sotomayor’s statement:

“Could a white man get away with saying something comparable about a Latina? Of course not. After Latinas have run the world for 2,000 years, they won’t be able to say it ever again.”

So the reason it is open season on white males is because we run the world?

You see, I’m a white male and I’ve never ruled the world. Not even for one minute.

I don’t even want to rule the world. I don’t even want to dictatorially rule my own house — that’s done by a a nice oligarchy of my wife and me, with a barking veto from the dog.

I’d like my freedom, though, and to have a democratic say in my government.

Oh, and to be judged on my demonstrated character . . . not blamed for what some other guy with similar skin hues did two thousand years ago.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary

Help Is Not on the Way

Think twice before you save people about to lose their lives, at least if you live in California.

The state supreme court there just ruled that good Samaritans can be held liable if they cause or aggravate an injury while rendering emergency help if that help is not medical.

A 1980 California law protects persons who render emergency aid from just such liability. But in a recent decision, the high court divined that this protection only pertains to “medical” care.

Therefore, Lisa Torti is liable for damages for pulling her coworker, Alexandra Van Horn, out of a car wreck in 2004. Van Horn became a paraplegic as a result of the accident. Ms. Torti did not cause the crash, but she was reluctant to stand by to witness her friend die should the car explode.

In his dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter observes that the perverse result of the ruling is that a person “who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim.”

So, hide your identity when you rescue people in California. That way, when you save somebody’s life and he yells, “Who was that masked man? Because I want to sue!” — he’ll be out of luck.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary property rights too much government

© Is for California

You might think that there’s nothing a government won’t try. You’d be right. But I was near stupified to learn that the state of California copyrights its laws. And it’s not alone.

The state tries to control — through copyright — how you can access its laws, where and how you store them, etc. The state makes available its building codes, plumbing standards and criminal laws online, but requires you to ask for permission to download them!

The state’s out to make money. It charges $1,556 for a digital version, more for a print-out, and makes nearly a million dollars a year selling what is legally ours.

Yes, what’s ours. We are a nation of laws, not of men, and we have the right to own and reprint our laws as much as we want. The purpose of copyright is to ensure private parties can maintain some control over their intellectual property. But the laws themselves are, in point of elementary political theory, the intellectual property of all. Not of state bureaus.

Thankfully, heroic Internet technician and mover and shaker Carl Malamud believes in government transparency. And he, unlike Al Gore, really worked to help build the Internet.

On Labor Day Mr. Malamud published the whole California code online. Available for free.

Obviously, Malamud is spoiling for a fight. Good. He should win it. He has, after all, the law (if not the state) on his side.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary jury rights and duties

Penn’s Jurors’ Treason — Our Reason

Remember, remember the Fifth of September, when jurors freed Penn of the knot. I know of no reason why Penn’s jurors’ treason should ever be forgot.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is one of three governors who have honored September 5, officially, as Jury Rights Day. From her 2007 proclamation we learn that 338 years ago, in the trial of William Penn, his jury refused to convict him of violating England’s Conventicle Acts, despite clear evidence that he acted illegally by preaching a Quaker sermon.

In acquitting Penn, the jury acted against the judge’s explicit instructions, perhaps spurred by the judge’s own illegality, not allowing Penn to make a defense. So the judge threw the jurors in prison, on September 5.

In my little ditty, my parody of the Guy Fawkes Day rhyme, I indicated Penn was in danger of hanging. I doubt that. It rhymes; that’s my excuse. But he was in danger of harsh imprisonment, at the very least, merely for gathering people so he could preach.

The jurors who resisted a bad law and a rogue judge risked a lot. But they not only freed Penn, who went on to found Pennsylvania, they established important principles to be found today in our Bill of Rights — and in the principle of jury nullification. They served justice by judging the law as well as the accused.

I know of no reason why Penn’s jurors’ “treason” should ever be forgot!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.