home
Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:16:40 AM EST
The quality of justice really is better in the federal courts.  As a former class action lawyer myself, I never really saw CAFA as terrible public policy, although it certainly didn't help my business interests.

That said, this is really a vote about whose side you're on.  None of these people are philosopher-kings; the trial lawyers have their lobby and the National Association of Manufactures has its lobby.  Being on the wrong side of this vote is troubling simply because it makes you wonder why anyone would want to curry favor with those groups on the GOP side.

i can see both sides (4.00 / 1) (#11)
by boredmpa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:45:05 AM EST
but i'm living in a state (CA) that frequently has to get waivers and permission from the fed for certain things.  That's problematic when dealing with citizen safety issues and standards regulation.

Slightly offtopic, but I'm fine with federal minimum standards on many things, provided they give leeway to states to go beyond.  I'm not okay with regulations that limit states from protecting citizens.  In addition, it requires a lot more work, timing, local information, and persistence for either group to influence public policy in 50 states.  That keeps regulation from loosening too quickly, which in the case of safety issues is probably a good thing (because impacts and org behaviors develop over time).

So though I know this is a lot different, I tend to view it in a similar way as I view Banking standards/regs at the federal/state level.  

[ Parent ]

Yin-Yang (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by AnninCA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:49:14 AM EST
state-federal.

The worst?  Feds busting CA medical marijuana users.

Good grief.  Do they not understand basic PR?  You aren't going to get bonus points for taking people down who are in terminal life situations.

[ Parent ]

heh, as i've mentioned before (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by boredmpa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:01:33 AM EST
i live in SF.  and i'm in a neighborhood where i smell pot all the time walking to and fro the store (current tracking average is 30%).  Sigh, I think my neighbors are smoking again, which means I have to close the window.

Now, I have to be paranoid about drug tests with SFO or the GAO or whatever city/state/federal job I apply to because I need to breathe the air in the city.  I really don't want to be the guy with the correct polygraph and positive drug test trying to sue to keep/get my job.

And I don't even want to know how amusing it would be to apply for SFO with a medical marijuana card.  I know they use FBI for some security analysis, but do they just toss out the drug part?  Or does some fed agent have to sign off on it....and what about other city operations that work with the feds on issues.  Messy.

[ Parent ]

CAFA Is Not Bad Law (none / 0) (#64)
by Michael Masinter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:45:57 AM EST
Steve M is correct.  CAFA is not a bad law, and a vote for it is not a betrayal of progressive principles.  When I started practicing law in the early 1970s, almost all progressive litigation took place in federal courts, and progressive lawyers learned the minutiae of standing and subject matter jurisdiction to find ways to get cases into federal courts.  What has changed since then is the makeup of the judges who comprise the federal bench; they are increasingly conservative.  If we had just come off a thirty year run of democratic appointments to the federal courts, consumers would have pushed CAFA and business groups would have fought it tooth and nail.

In short, the objections to CAFA are instrumental; progressives have not become born again federalists out of a principled commitment to states' rights; we just don't like the current crop of federal judges. Give us back Brennan, Marshall, Elbert Tuttle et al and we'd swoon for CAFA.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft