PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Around the Web, April 25



  • Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader, covering a news conference: "Gov. Matt Blunt is declaring victory in fighting frivolous lawsuits and "runaway personal injury" financial judgments against physicians....Since Blunt got medical malpractice tort reform passed three years ago, total claims against Missouri doctors dropped 61 percent from 2005 to 2006, according to state figures." The AP story is here.
  • The Daily Oklahoman reports that tort reform appears to have died in this year's legislative session the sponsor pulls the bill. "Rep. Daniel Sullivan, R-Tulsa, pulled Senate Bill 156 after Republicans joined Democrats to defeat an amendment that would have let voters decide whether to cap contingency fees at 33 percent instead of 50 percent for attorneys in personal injury cases." SB 156 generally tracked the tort reform measure vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry last year. More at The Journal-Record.
  • The U.S. Chamber and Institute for Legal Reform publish web columns providing more context on their 2008 Legal Climate survey of the states. Bryan Quigley dissects the shoddy responses of the American Association of Justice: "It seems that the entire set of plaintiffs' lawyer talking points are recycled, tired, and out of step, along with their notion of the actual facts. But we do appreciate the help they bring in drawing attention year after year to our study." And the ILR's Lisa Rickard reminds us all: "Legal Reform is a Constant Process, Not a One-Time Event."
  • And your guest blogger makes a point at the NAM blog, Shopfloor.org, about the inconsistency of the New York Times' editorialists over the years. On Thursday, the Times attacked the National Association of Manufacturers for suing to stop new lobbying disclosure provisions: "The law was plainly written to smoke out stealth lobbying organizations, not to protect Washington insiders." Yet in a 1995 editorial on McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Times applauded a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found the First Amendment protected the distribution of anonymous election pamphlets. The NYT: "The Court thus protects unpopular people who might not voice their views if forced to identify themselves." Our point: The First Amendment protects both the lonely pamphleteer AND Washington insiders.

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.