And now, more tales of hypocrisy, drama, and even some good old-fashioned fire and brimstone. And it's all true; trust me, I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to.

Santorum: Jury Caps Are Fine for You, but Not for Me
Ah, poor Rick Santorum. Pity the man who keeps getting caught up in his own hypocrisy. Why, just this last May he compared Democratic attempts to keep the filibuster rule in the Senate to the political wranglings of a certain Adolf Hitler in 1942 . . . after he expressed his "outrage" at MoveOn.org for having some visitor-contributed ads that compared the Bush administration's power-consolidation to that of the Third Reich. This after it was revealed that even though he claims he's a Pennsylvania resident when it's time to file for election and get tax breaks in the state, he actually lives in Virginia. And, of course, he went on record in his book It Takes a Family (meant to be a poke in the eye to Hillary Clinton) to say that working mothers are neglecting their children, only to flip-flop this last July and say that “What I’m talking about here are, is, really society saying to women who in many cases do have a choice that they should be affirmed no matter what decision they make.”

And now . . . *sigh*

All of us involved in the law, especially those of us with an interest in personal injury cases (you know: helping people whose lives have been devastated because someone else hurt them restore their lives to the extent that it's possible), have been listening to Santorum beat the drum for so-called "tort reform". This is the game of "blame the lawyers" that the GOP likes to play. (It's very similar to the game of "blame the media" that right-wingers always want to play . . . ever notice that they never really want to blame the person who actually did something wrong?) Santorum has been pushing over and over this idea that there should be a $250,000 judgment cap on medical malpractice suits. (Sorry, Joe . . . I know that you're only 24 years old and the doctor accidentally paralyzed you for life while doing that tonsilectomy and you've lost your job and your wife and most of your dignity as a result and you're going to be in constant pain for the next 50 or sixty years . . . but $250,000 ought to be enough to cover that! Why, any more than that and the insurance rates will go so high that the surgeon won't be able to afford his Porsche payment!) Well, it turns out that this is another "do as I say, and not what I do" Santorism. Turns out that in 1995, Santorum's wife sued her chiropractor for $500,000 in non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and humiliation. And Santorum testified on her behalf that she couldn't carry laundry baskets or help him with his political campaigns, so she was entitled to the damages. (The jury ended up awarding $350,000.)

So, here's where we are: $250,000 ought to be more than enough to cover your pain and suffering if the doctor screws up. But if Mrs. Santorum can't carry laundry baskets or help elect her husband to represent a state in which he doesn't actually live, she deserves twice that.

I guess that's fair. Right?

Sex, Blackmail, and Scandal in Michigan
(No, it's not a soap opera)
On Wednesday, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox (R) called a press conference. The purpose: to announce that he had an extramarital affair (*gasp!*) and that someone was trying to blackmail him over it (*SHOCK!*) and that the someone trying to blackmail him was . . .

(. . . wait for it . . .)

. . . his long-time political adversary and presumptive opponent for re-election in 2006, attorney Geoffrey Fieger. [Insert dramatic musical "stinger" here: duhm duhm DUUUUUUHHHMMMMM!!!!]

Those of us who live in Michigan are quite familiar with both characters. Cox is a right-wing ideologue who is a strong proponent of denying the children of homosexual couples access to medical care; he pushed the passage of Michigan's infamous anti-gay law and has since been working to apply it so that the children of gay couples cannot be covered by their parents' insurance. Fieger is a brash, obnoxious attorney who is best known for being Jack Kevorkian's lawyer and for running a slash-and-burn campaign as the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 1998; his motto seems to be "go as negative as possible, smear everyone, and let God sort 'em out."

Neither of these two characters is someone the state should really be proud of.

As I understand it, the story unfolds like this: Cox accused Feiger of illegally funneling campaign contributions into a campaign to prevent a Michigan Supreme Court justice from being re-elected in 2004. (Yes, we elect our Supreme Court here, and they traditionally hand down the best judgments big money can buy.) Feiger, it is alleged, somehow found out about an affair Cox had several years ago and had Lee O'Brien, another attorney in the Detroit area, call and threaten to reveal the affair unless Cox dropped the investigation. Cox claims this O'Brien guy, who has apparently had some shady dealing of his own in the past, is one of Feiger's associates; Feiger claims this is all untrue and that O'Brien is not any kind of associate of his. And now Feiger's attorney is seeking sanctions against Cox for violating the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (specifically, MRPC 3.6)by making "an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding." Feiger is also calling on Cox to resign. Feiger is also accusing Cox of staging the whole thing to smear Feiger before his campaign can even officially start and simultaneously come clean.

At this point, I honestly don't care what happens to either of these jokers. Cox is a lousy attorney general, and a hypocritical, homophobic sleaze. Feiger is an embarrassment to the Democrats and as much of a jerk in person as he appears to be in the media. (I've met the guy twice, and both times his arrogance alone was enough to almost knock me over.)

So what does this make of the election for 2006? Who should Michigan voters choose: Cox or Feiger?

Neither.

I have it on fairly good authority that a guy I know pretty well, and who is an excellent attorney, a fine legislator, and a remarkably decent human being, Rep. Alexander Lipsey from Kalamazoo, is planning to run for Attorney General. This man deserves the job! He is not only supremely qualified, but he has something neither of these two idiots can ever bring to the table: dignity. Run, Sandy, run!

Fire and Brimstone to Rain Down Upon Dover!
Pat Robertson. What can I say? You have to love a man who thinks space aliens (if they exist) are literally demons; that feminists, gays, and liberals caused the 9/11 attacks (okay, Falwell said it, but Robertson pointedly agreed with him); that the United States should assasinate political adversaries (out of good Christian love, of course), and that the Bible greenlights genocide.

Now, he's at it again, telling the people of Dover, Pennsylvania that they will be smited (Smited? Smote? Smothed?) for kicking the fundie Intelligent Design school board members out of office on Tuesday. Sayeth Robertson: “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city.”

Oooo! Scary!

So, riddle me this: why is it that those of us who understand science know that Intelligent Design is re-packaged Christian creationism, hard-core religious crackpot fundamentalists like Pat Robertson know that Intelligent Design is re-packaged Christian creationism, and the drafters of the concept themselves know that Intelligent Design is re-packaged Christian creationism, but they expect a judge to be stupid enough to not "get it"?