class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs


« FDA panel: Vioxx safe enough for market | In Defense of the Economic Analysis of Regulation »

February 19, 2005

Litigation lobby can't get its talking points straight
"The [Class Action Fairness Act] is the first significant Congressional tort 'reform' victory for the radical right and a catastrophe for workers and consumers."
(Dan Zegart, "Tort 'Reform' Triumphs", The Nation Online, Feb. 17).
"Corporations may rue the day they fought for class-action reform."
(Stephanie Mencimer, "Backlog or Backfire?", The American Prospect Online, Feb. 16).

Mencimer argues that federal jurisdiction should be restricted to issues of national importance (one looks forward to her call for the repeal of the IDEA), and that federal courts can't handle the influx of nationwide class actions because "In 2004, the federal courts saw a nearly 10-percent increase in new filings over the previous year." This is curious because she was recently lauded by many blogs for criticizing Stuart Taylor for disagreeing with Mencimer's earlier claim that filings are decreasing. An understandable oversight when, like a drunk and a lamppost, one uses statistics for support rather than illumination.

Posted by Ted Frank at 12:15 AM | TrackBack (0)

Class Actions



Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.