About Your Day in Court...

Salon--day pass or subscription required--has an article covering the career of John Edwards, and the rather disingenuous attitude the Republicans have towards lawyers. It clock in a little long at five pages, but is worth a look. In particular, consider the plight of the family whom Edwards represented against the manufacturer of a faulty swimming pool drain, which Tucker Carlson callously referred to as a "jacuzzi accident:"

On a summer evening in 1993, David Lakey took his little girl swimming at a recreation center in Raleigh, N.C. Valerie Lakey was 5 years old, a good swimmer, and she and her friends liked to splash around in the children's wading pool that stayed open a little later than the big pool where they usually swam.

That's what Valerie was doing when a nearby mom heard her call out for help. Valerie was sitting on the bottom of the shallow pool, and the suction from the drain was holding her down. David Lakey raced to free his daughter but couldn't. Other parents jumped in the water to help, but they couldn't get Valerie loose. Valerie was scared, and she began to say that her stomach hurt.

Time passed, and somebody figured out how to turn off the pool's pump. The suction broke, and Valerie was released from its grip. But as David Lakey pulled his daughter from the water, blood and tissue filled the pool. Valerie's intestines had been sucked out.

David Lakey slumped to the ground on the side of the pool. He held his daughter on his chest, praying as they waited for an ambulance. Over and over, he told Valerie, "Daddy loves you. Daddy loves you. Daddy loves you."

Steve Gilliard also took time to comment on the Salon story. Also, Billmon has a post that doesn't focus on the Salon article, per se, but looks more generally at the attack on Kerry-Edwards that is well worth reading, like everything else he writes.

In particular, the article focuses on the nature of contingency fee representation--the practice of an attorney taking no money up front (and getting no money in the event of an adverse judgment) in exchange for a percentage of any damage award. Look for the attack dogs of the Right to accuse Edwards of somehow being less clean than their boys based on how he made his living. Furthermore, they'll imply that Edwards was being greedy when he took his cut.

To which I have three words: Halliburton, and Texas Rangers. Actually, if I really wanted to, I could up the ante a bit and add Arbusto and Harken Energy for good measure. As the article points out, no one has ever suggested that Bush and Cheney give back to the companies that gave so generously to them--in spite of the fact that they weren't exactly the brightest of stewards during their respective reigns.

But, most important, we should ALWAYS look askance at anyone who seeks to limit our rights as citizens to our day in court. THAT is the great equalizer in this society--that no one or thing is above the law to the extent that they can't be held accountable for the damage they do. Forget about the nonesense regarding outrageous tort claims (which are almost always dramatically reduced anyway). The very idea that organizations are lobbying to limit our ability to seek redress of grievences is outrageous. You don't see corporations voluntarily giving up THEIR rights--why should citizens be asked to do so?

Civil suits can and often are thrown out prima face, if the judge considers the suit to be frivilous. Juries can and do reject damage suits if the burden of proof isn't met. Damages, as noted, are often reduced. The only thing so called "tort reformers" want is to limit the rights of individuals--rights which have served us just fine for over two centuries and which are sometimes the only thing keeping corporations honest.

And, if you don't like what I said, sue me--but you better have a damn good reason, otherwise I'll have the judge throw the case out on its face.