From the
Executive Director
How about this for a change? Let’s notbe civil Stuart Zanville
Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles For as long as the plaintiffs’ trial bar
has been in existence, and CAALA traces its roots back to 1949, one of the mantras of the organization has been to advocate civility toward our adversaries. This has proven to be good advice in the court- room, and most jurists will admonish an attorney who doesn’t practice civility toward their opponent. In the court of public opinion and the
From the
Stuart Zanville CAALA
hardball political world we now live in, however, this approach isn’t working and it’s time to respond to our enemies in a dif- ferent way. It’s time NOT to be civil.
From the Executive Director
Stuart Zanville CAALA
Good advice from a poet I suggest we take our inspiration from
the poet Dylan Thomas who wrote these famous words about approaching old age: Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. In today’s world, the “dying of the
light” is the death of an independent judi- ciary, the demise of the civil justice system and even the fall of democracy as we know it. For far too long, advocates of the civil
Stuart Zanville
justice system have been too gentle in responding to attacks against them. It’s time for some rage. Attacks on trial lawyers, judges and juries
From the
have gone on for decades. But within the last five years, as the Tea Party movement has incredibly shaped and influenced the entire political process, the attacks are more blatant, more ruthless and more relentless.
Ratcheting up As the opposition ratchets up these
attacks, trial lawyers have seen the results in the juries they deal with every day and readers of this column know all too well that jurors actually believe the attacks on lawyers and judges that they watch, read and hear from conservative media, pundits and politicians. While trial lawyers are thick-skinned
and have become accustomed to attacks from anti-consumer and pro-business con- servatives, the vehemence of the attacks on judges is something new. As the presidential- election campaign begins in earnest, one of the regular messages from Republican
92 — The Advocate Magazine FEBRUARY 2012 Executive Director
candidates is blistering criticism of the judicial branch of government. In an editorial on Nov. 1, 2011, the
L.A. Times said, “Beating up on Federal judges is nothing new for conservative politicians. But the near-unanimous embrace of that tactic by the 2012 Republican presidential field is neverthe- less depressing. Candidates who trumpet their support for the Constitution are seek- ing to hobble one of that document’s cen- tral protections: an independent judiciary.” The editorial concludes, “Presidents
can influence the courts particularly in the appointment of Supreme Court justices. But the restrictions being proposed by the Republican candidates would undermine a pillar of constitutional government. We hope they’re not serious.” Unfortunately, judging from the com-
ments of every Republican candidate, they are deadly serious. Newt Gingrich, who fancies himself
Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
Executive Director By Stuart Zanville
Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
to be the most “intellectual” of the Republican candidates, says as president he would simply ignore Supreme Court deci- sions that he doesn’t like and that he would press for impeaching judges or even abolish- ing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings. In a news conference in Iowa in December, Gingrich said that “The courts have become grotesquely dictatorial and far too powerful.” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC
Irvine School of Law, addressed this issue in an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times in December and wrote,” Perhaps these attacks on the Federal judiciary are just part of the exceptionally poisonous rheto- ric of these divisive times. Americans across the political spectrum should con- demn such rhetoric and remember that an independent judiciary enforcing
the Constitution is a crucial feature of American democracy.” Attacks on judges, juries and lawyers
are attacks on democracy. We sometimes forget that the 16th and 17th words of the U.S. Constitution are “Establish Justice.” Eliminating an independent judiciary will do just the opposite. In California, negative perceptions of the judiciary and the legal system have
manifested themselves in the debate over the state’s budget problems. The Court budget has become an easy target for politicians, both conservative and moder- ate, and it is not unrealistic to link criticism of judges and the civil justice system with the appalling cuts to the Court budgets – more than $1 billion in the last three years alone. Without funding, the Courts simply cannot function, which is exactly the hope of the Tea Party and pro-business conservatives.
Time for a different response In April, columnist and Nobel laureate
economist, Paul Krugman, wrote the fol- lowing in the New York Times: Last week President Obama offered a
spirited defense of his party’s values – in effect, of the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society. Immediately there- after, as always happens when Democrats take a stand, the civility police came out in force. The president, we were told, was being too partisan; he needs to treat his opponents with respect; he should have lunch with them, and work out a consensus. That’s a bad idea. Equally important, it’s an undemocratic idea. Krugman concluded: So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s
have a frank discussion of our differ- ences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so – and take their case to the voters. Trial lawyers must be strong in their
defense of the judiciary and the civil justice system. They must take every opportunity to express their rage at what is happening both nationally and in California. Nationally, they cannot stand idly by
as attacks on an independent judiciary con- tinue as part of the national political process. Locally, they can’t turn their back as court staff are laid off and eventually as courtrooms are closed, denying people access to justice. If you have questions or comments
about this column, contact me at the CAALA office or by e-mail at
stuart@caala.org.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96