The New York State Senate is now deadlocked at 31-31, and the lawsuit to impose a judicial solution on a legislative problem was tossed out today. What to do with this mess? The solution is actually quite easy.

First, the idea of one party or the other being in charge because one particular vote was legitimately taken or not is a waste of time. For elevating form over substance is useless when both parties have the power to deadlock Albany. To get anything done, an agreement is necessary.

The solution for the Senate is the same one my father used for dividing The Big Cookie between two sons. One kid cuts it in half and the other kid gets to pick which one he wants. That way the cutter has to be fair. The game of "you cut, I pick" is diabolically simple.

The Senate should do the same. One party divides all the power positions into two separate groups and the other side gets to pick the one they want. Who cuts and who picks? A simple coin toss. There. Was that so hard?

Tomorrow I will attempt to cure the common cold.

Labels: Politics

It was cold yesterday for the inauguration, and being the high fashion stylist and chronicler of social culture that I am, I noted that there was an absence of hats on many of the men. While I usually leave issues of sartorial splendor and naked heads to fashion maven Scott Greenfield (See: Lawyer Fashionista: The Naked Head), this desire keep the head naked on a cold day was something I couldn't help but notice.

And then I checked out this very cool photo from the New York Times, which allows you to scan the crowd on the podium and zoom in on people. As you hold the cursor over a person, it tells you who they are. I wasn't looking for haberdashery at the time, I was just looking to see who had the primo seats.

So off to President Obama's left (his right) up on the podium I spy some yokel in a blue baseball cap. Not a fedora, cowboy hat or driving cap, as a few were wearing, or something roguishly stylish, but a baseball cap.

Zoom, zoom, zoom. It's Joe Lieberman.

Is it a sign of disrespect for Obama? Perhaps it was a combination of being unprepared for the cold after coming in from the warm climate of a Connecticut winter combined with lousy fashion sense?

I don't know. But one thing is for certain, I scanned the crowd in the picture on the podium and he seemed to be in a rather distinct minority in his fashion choice. Of course, that might be a metaphor for his politics at this point.

I'll be back with personal injury law soon.

Labels: Politics

Beep.

You've reached the Turkewitz Law Firm. No one can take your call at the moment. We are watching the realization of a dream because a man was judged, not by the color of his skin but, by the content of his character.

After the tone please leave your name and number and someone will get back to you.

Beep.

Labels: Politics

Some snippets of fond farewells. Each has much more at the links provided:

From Bob Herbert in the New York Times, December 30, 2008: (Add Up The Damage):

I don't think [Bush] should be allowed to slip quietly out of town. There should be a great hue and cry -- a loud, collective angry howl, demonstrations with signs and bullhorns and fiery speeches -- over the damage he's done to this country.

This is the man who gave us the war in Iraq and Guantanamo and torture and rendition; who turned the Clinton economy and the budget surplus into fool's gold; who dithered while New Orleans drowned; who trampled our civil liberties at home and ruined our reputation abroad; who let Dick Cheney run hog wild and thought Brownie was doing a heckuva job.

From Paul Waldman at the American Prospect, November 11, 2008 (Goodbye and Good Riddance):

Goodbye to the rotating cast of butchers manning the White House's legal abattoir, where the Constitution has been sliced and bled and gutted since September 11. Goodbye to the "unitary executive" theory and its claims that the president can do whatever he wants -- even snatch an American citizen off the street and lock him up for life without charge, without legal representation, and without trial. Goodbye to the promiscuous use of "signing statements" (1,100 at last count) to declare that the law is whatever the president says it is, and that he'll enforce only those laws he likes. Goodbye to an executive branch that treats lawfully issued subpoenas like suggestions that can be ignored.

From Andy Hoffman at The PopTort, January 1, 2009 (So Long Mr. Bush, and Thanks for all the Grief):

As fans of civil justice well know, consumers are kept safe from the havoc inflicted by corporate miscreants by both tough regulations and the deterrent effect of legal liability. Unfortunately, Bush and his cronies have done a lot of damage on both fronts -- by turning federal regulatory agencies into apologists for corporate wrongdoing and then trying to use these agencies to immunize corporations from lawsuits.

"There ought to be limits to Freedom."

-- Gov. George W. Bush, May 21, 1999.

Labels: Politics

Blaring across the front page of today's New York Times after a couple weeks of speculation is the story of Caroline Kennedy vying for Hillary's Senate seat. One of the most disturbing parts of the article comes from an anonymous source who says that Gov. Paterson likes the idea of a Kennedy-Paterson ticket in 2010 when they both must run. This is the money quote:

"The upside of her candidacy is that the 2010 ballot will read Kennedy --- Paterson," said one of those advisers, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the governor’s thinking. "David craves national attention and money. If you connect the dots, it leads to her."

Kennedy's qualifications, apparently, are that she chose her parents well. She has done some fund raising for education, but is not known to have had a full time job in many years (though she does have a law degree).

Sorry, but that's not good enough. In fact, I find it downright offensive. We've seen what happens when the child of a famous politician vaults into public service based on that fame, and not on actual achievements. After eight years of George Bush, I don't care to see anyone, of any party, get an important position based on their name.

So here is a suggestion to consider for the vacant Senate seat: Chief Judge Judith Kaye, who has served as New York's chief judge longer than anyone else, and done so with distinction. (There is a video tribute to Kaye at the New York Law Journal website. h/t Ed.) She is retiring now because she hit the mandatory retirement age of 70 (see: Chief Judge Kaye Says Goodbye).

Now I don't know if Kaye actually wants the job. We've never met and she doesn't know me from a hole in the wall.

But it seems to me that she has served with distinction, is widely trusted and respected, and thus should at least be considered for the position along with other qualified individuals.

Given that Paterson was known to be peeved that a woman was not part of the panel of potential replacements for Kaye for the chief judge slot, and that he would like a woman to replace Hillary, it seems that, as one of the most accomplished women in the state, her name should be in the mix for consideration.

One final item, given the scandal with Gov. Nutjob out in Illinois trying to sell Obama's seat to the highest bidder -- I hear he may consider eBay for this -- it makes it even more important for Paterson to make sure that the person he picks is well-qualified.

Labels: Politics

With the stunning election of Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency, change has officially arrived. Even if he is a complete failure as a president, or if tragedy strikes.

Change is here because even more important than the policy differences with Sen. John McCain is the fact that Americans actually elected him to begin with. Martin Luther King famously had a dream that his children would one day live in a nation "where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

That dream is now reality because Obama was judged on his policies and character. And he didn't get there simply because blacks voted for him. It took tens of millions of white and Latino voters also. That change can be nothing less than a shock to every poltical system we have.

The change is such that you can almost hear the jaws hitting the floor in nations around the world, from places where the U.S. is often reviled. Can you imagine the response in the Arab world? Americans elected a guy with the name Hussein?

The biggest losers in this election are those seek to sow hatred because of the conduct of the Bush administration. That hatred reflected on us all. But now what? How do hate-mongers and terrorists engage in recruitment for their wars if Americans have rejected the policy of arrogance and belligerence and shown an open mind to a new era? The invasion of Iraq was a boon to Al-Qaeda, which thrives on war and anarchy. The election of Obama will, I think, be one of the worst things to happen to it when it comes to creating more terrorists. It is now more difficult to demonize America.

The election was met with happiness in both Israel and the Arab world. Think about that, and the doors it could open and the opportunities that could be realized. (Addendum: See hundreds of newspaper front pages here, and click on pictures to enlarge.)

We need not wait for a new dawn of change on January 20th. It arrived last night when the polls closed and Americans made their voices known.
-------------------
Photo credit: Julie Turkewitz

Prior election coverage:

• P.T. Barnum was Wrong on Sarah Palin (10/31/08)

• Political Malpractice (By John McCain) (10/26/08)

• Presidential Politics and the Iowa Caucus (1/2/08)

Labels: Elections, Politics

The Sarah Palin debacle contains a lesson for trial lawyers. It's a lesson on playing a trial straight, without shtick. And a lesson that runs contrary to what legendary showman P.T. Barnum was alleged to have said:

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

Today a New York Times / CBS pol shows that the public doesn't believe Sarah Palin is ready for the job. According to this NYT story (Growing Doubts on Palin Take a Toll, Poll Finds):

All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up nine percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favor Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee.

And according to this CBS story:

A third of voters saying the vice presidential nominees will factor in their vote, and here the Democrats have the edge: While 74 percent say Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden is prepared to be vice president, just 35 percent say GOP counterpart Sarah Palin is prepared for the job.

The lesson to draw from this mess? Argue the evidence. Jurors will feel insulted if you do otherwise. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily explain how and why voters did what they did in other elections.)

The quote, by the way, most likely wasn't Barnum's, but belonged to H. L. Mencken. If you decide you want to believe what you read on the Internet.

Labels: Politics, Trial Practice

If I were a donor to the McCain campaign, I'd want my money back. In selecting Sarah Palin as his vice presidential choice, he was clearly negligent, or in the terms this blog uses, has committed malpractice.

The definition of malpractice -- and the way most professional malpractice cases are fought in the courtroom -- turns on this distinction in language: The plaintiff argues that the professional "departed from customary and usual practice" while the defense argues that the mistake was a "mere error of judgment" and that such errors do not constitute negligence. In other words, if both x and y are viable options and picking x turns out bad, then such error is a non-actionable judgment call.

So did McCain commit political malpractice? Well it sure seems that picking Sarah Palin was the best thing to happen to the Democrats in years, as she helped to drive people away from McCain. And the damage was certainly foreseeable.

Let's consider the evidence of political malpractice in the V.P. selection:

• A central McCain theme is his many years of experience to contrast him with the youthful Obama. But McCain met Palin only once before picking her as his running mate. Even mid-level corporate employees go through multiple rounds of interviews to make sure they are properly vetted. Obama has turned McCain impulsiveness into his own theme. This wasn't just a judgment of choosing between Main Street or Broadway to get from Point A to Point B but, perhaps more than anything, akin to backing out of a driveway without looking. (Addendum: From McCain's own mouth:

  ...on Oct. 16, McCain praised Palin but went out of his way to point out how little he knew about her before he chose her as his running mate. "I didn’t know her real well," McCain said. "I knew her reputation. I didn’t know her well at all. I didn’t know her well at all."

• McCain is 72 years-old and has had multiple bouts of melanoma -- the most deadly form of skin cancer. Thus, the experience of his running mate matters more than in most elections in addition to the issue of contrasting him with Obama. But he chose someone whose foreign policy experience is that she can see Russia from a remote Alaskan island, perhaps one of the worst political arguments ever made. Once again, McCain undercut himself.
  

• One of McCain's signature issues is fiscal responsibility and curtailing pork barrel spending. He then picks the governor of Alaska, which ranks first on a per capita basis in the pork department. And it is worth noting, a state that leads in pork despite its oil wealth that allows it to send checks to the citizens. Picking a leading Alaskan official undercut the domestic policy position that McCain's had elevated above all else.

• It is a necessary political reality that primary candidates run to the extremes of their party to win primaries, because this is the base that votes. Primary winners then must pick a centrist candidate for VP to win the undecided middle. McCain violated that cardinal rule by picking someone far off to the right. If the polls are correct, the middle has turned against him, a clearly foreseeable event.
  

• McCain has long eschewed the politics of personal destruction, and was of course on the receiving end of it from George Bush in the 2000 election. He continued in that vain to win the 2008 primary, to the admiration of many. Then flip-flopped to violate that principle he held dear. At the center of the nastiness? Yep, Sarah Palin.

• Another McCain theme was the "eltism" of Obama. While no one seems to be certain exactly what that means, it is safe to say that "a respectable Republican cloth coat," as Nixon put it in his Checkers speech, was not elitist. While McCain has trouble with this concept given his $500 loafers and his many houses, it should have made him (and the staff he hires) that much more cautious about spending. Yet once again, undercutting his theme, his V.P. and/or staff spends a fortune in clothes at some of the priciest stores in the country. While the country spirals into recession.
  

Politics gives people many options. But when a person makes a decision that is not even a viable option then one crosses the line from merely making a bad judgment call, to departing from accepted practices. That's malpractice.

Those who gave money after the Palin nomination, of course, have no cause to beef. But those who gave their hard-earned money before The Choice have plenty of reason to be screaming if McCain/Palin should lose. They got robbed, pure and simple, by the gross negligence of this selection.

If I were a pre-Palin donor, I'd want my money back.

Labels: Politics