Better Judges, Better Courts
In a column written expressly for Pajamas Media, Rudy Giuliani declares that judges should be "interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench" and vows that as president he would nominate strict constructionist judges with "proven fidelity to the Constitution." The former New York mayor and front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination has other legal reforms in store as well... By Rudolph W. Giuliani
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
The most lasting legacy of many presidents can be found in our courts and the opinions authored by the judges they appoint.
That’s why one of my 12 commitments to the American people is to reform our legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges who interpret the law instead of legislating from the bench.
As President, I will nominate strict constructionist judges with respect for the rule of law and a proven fidelity to the Constitution - judges in the mold of Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.Americans are concerned that special interests and partisan politics are compromising the integrity of our legal system. In too many cases, there is no accountability and no evident common sense. That’s why our nation needs to eliminate frivolous lawsuits while ensuring that responsible judges are appointed to our courts.
Some people believe judges should “evolve” the law to reflect short-term political and cultural trends. I disagree. The individuals responsible for updating our laws are our elected representatives. Federal judges - who are appointed for life - are responsible for interpreting our laws. And the Constitution can only be amended by the American people.
When I worked for President Reagan as his Associate Attorney General - the third highest ranking official in the Department of Justice - I participated in the selection process for Federal Judges, United States Attorneys, and Marshals, working closely with Ted Olson, who went on to become U.S. Solicitor General and John Roberts, who is now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The goal was to appoint responsible judges guided by a constitutional compass.
As President, I will nominate strict constructionist judges with respect for the rule of law and a proven fidelity to the Constitution - judges in the mold of Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.
Today, one of the great barriers to appointing good judges is the Democratic-controlled Senate. There are currently 48 vacancies in our Federal Courts. And if you look at the 18 federal judges the Senate has confirmed this year, you’ll see that confirmation can take anywhere from two to 11 months from the Senate’s hearing date.
When it comes to the judicial confirmation process, I believe that there is a time for debating and there is a time for deciding. As president, I will call on the Senate to amend its rules to ensure a fair up or down vote for judicial nominees within 90 days.
Reform must also take place throughout our nation’s courts.
To reduce the impact of the Trial Lawyer Tax, we should reform the system by adopting rules that discourage frivolous lawsuits, such as “loser pays.”A family dry cleaning business was recently dragged through two years of litigation seeking $54 million as compensation for a lost pair of pants. To make matters worse, the person who brought the irresponsible lawsuit was a judge. And though the family won their case, they spent more than $100,000 in the process.
This is just one example of the real costs of frivolous lawsuits. Civil litigation consumes 2.2 percent of America’s gross domestic product, more than twice that of other industrial countries. The annual price tag on a family of four is $9,827 per year. In the health care industry, many doctors report ordering unnecessary tests to avoid frivolous lawsuits - in Pennsylvania as many as 93% of doctors - costing up to $100 billion annually. Doctors call this “Defensive medicine.” I call it a Trial Lawyer Tax.
To reduce the impact of the Trial Lawyer Tax, we should reform the system by adopting rules that discourage frivolous lawsuits, such as “loser pays.” The ideal would be the English Rule, in which the losing party pays the winning side’s legal fees. This may prove to be too much of a change for our society, but we should at least shift the burden of proof to the losing party to show good-faith basis for their lawsuit. And Judges should also be able to quickly dismiss frivolous lawsuits.
Our nation’s legal system should always be held above special interest and partisan politics.Civil lawsuits also cost too much and take too long. One federal court is known as the “Rocket Docket” because it has enacted local rules and procedures that successfully reduce the time and cost of suits. Every court should adopt similar rules because every court should be a Rocket Docket.
We also need to establish limits on punitive and non-economic damages-which are too often used to turn the legal system into a lottery system. After all, a major incentive to file a lawsuit over a lost pair of pants is believing you have a chance to win $54 million.
In Texas, lawmakers and voters implemented a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages such as pain and suffering against doctors in malpractice cases. The law translated into dramatically reduced malpractice insurance costs for doctors. Now there is a flood of doctors moving to Texas in order to escape the unnecessarily high cost of doing business in other states, while the number of lawsuits against doctors in Texas has been cut in half.
The bottom line is our nation’s legal system should always be held above special interest and partisan politics. Justice is serious business. Judges should judge. Making laws is the responsibility of an elected legislature. And amending the Constitution is the responsibility of the American people. Under my watch, it will stay that way.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
27 Comments
JKRibera:Rudy wants to put limits on punitive damages? He’d better run that by John Edwards. He’ll have to cut back on his haircuts.
Jul 18, 2007 - 7:15 am Insomniac:Mayor Giuliani, whether or not you are following Fred Thompson’s lead by coming on this site, it is great to see you doing it. Personally, I’m of two minds about a Trial Lawyer Tax on frivolous lawsuits, but I’d be willing to try it for a while. The numbers have gotten astronomical.
Jul 18, 2007 - 7:19 am JOHN:Yeah, the cap in Texas means that only those whose income are high ( read, Republicans)will make lots of money when they sue their doctors. An unemployed guy will get the minimum because he has no monetary loss. Also, we Texans were promised that medical expenses would come down as a result of this “rich guy legislation” but still insurance prememius continue to rise. Tort reform is still another example of the rich trying to protect their riches from those they injure or maim.
Jul 18, 2007 - 7:20 am Paul:Interesting data:
Jul 18, 2007 - 8:58 am Rod T.:Total military donations to candidates:
Ron Paul 32.94%
John McCain 22.99%
Hillary Clinton 13.92%
Bill Richardson 7.03%
Barack Obama 6.85%
Mitt Romney 4.68%
Rudy Giuliani 3.06%
John Edwards 2.97%
Tom Tancredo 1.85%
Duncan Hunter 1.32%
Joe Biden 1.06%
Mike Huckabee 0.20%
Mike Gravel 0.09%
Sam Brownback 0.07%
tinyurl dotcom/354zsw Interesting data:
Total military donations to candidates:
Ron Paul 32.94%
John McCain 22.99%
Hillary Clinton 13.92%
Bill Richardson 7.03%
Barack Obama 6.85%
Mitt Romney 4.68%
Rudy Giuliani 3.06%
John Edwards 2.97%
Tom Tancredo 1.85%
Duncan Hunter 1.32%
Joe Biden 1.06%
Mike Huckabee 0.20%
Mike Gravel 0.09%
Sam Brownback 0.07%
tinyurl dotcom/354zsw <– Link
Mr. Giuliani,
Jul 18, 2007 - 9:45 am stanky:I noticed, by virtue of it’s conspicuous absence, that a commitment to 2nd Amendment rights was missing from your 12 commitments to America. Do you have any idea how big an issue this is to millions of Americans? The NRA has millions of members, and millions more sympathizers. I suggest you add one more item to your 12 commitments. Remember, there is a whole lot of us voters who don’t live in NYC, Chicago, or San Francisco, and you can’t be president without most of us.
Giuliani wants to limit the ability of the poor to sue the rich. He wants to take away your 2nd Amendment rights. He has no problem with the fact that your 4th Amendment rights are gone. He wants to change Senate procedures as far as judicial nominations. His law firm represents those foreign folks who will own and operate that NAFTA highway that has already been started but according to your government doesn’t exist.
He scares the doodoo out of me.
Jul 18, 2007 - 11:44 am James Brainerd:The over-heated Mr. Stanky above is about as convincing as Michael Moore.
Jul 18, 2007 - 11:58 am John:“The annual price tag on a family of four is $9,827 per year.”
I don’t know where you’re getting this, but it doesn’t pass the smell test–seems high by an order of magnitude. Of course a lawyer tax of $1K/yr is still way too high.
Jul 18, 2007 - 12:07 pm Mike Liveright:“Civil litigation consumes 2.2 percent of America’s gross domestic product,… The annual price tag on a family of four is $9,827 per year.” (Thus)
The average family of four earns ~ $446,681.88 per year? and
the GDP is 33T/year? “GDP: $13.13 trillion (2006 est.)” …
IT DOES NOT COMPUTE?
Jul 18, 2007 - 12:57 pm J. Mark English:Oy vey, it will be a long campaign….
http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com/
Jul 18, 2007 - 1:20 pm Freeperson:Rudy can’t fail!
Jul 18, 2007 - 1:25 pm Gamekeeper:Rudy,
You had my vote 2 years ago! As you do now!
Jul 18, 2007 - 2:23 pm Missouri Republican:Thank you for this message.
It’s statements like these from Rudy that make this pro-life conservative want to vote for him. At this point it’s basic math. We have four votes on the Supreme Court. Stevens or Ginsburg will retire under the next president. We need that fifth vote. I believe Rudy will give it to us. I would like to hear him talk about his short list for SCOTUS. Would Diane Sykes, Janice Rogers Brown, or William Pryor be the type of judges he would elevate to SCOTUS? What about Paul Clement? If he put these people on a short list I think that would seal the deal for a lot of conservatives.
Jul 18, 2007 - 6:16 pm stas Peterson:I appreciate the right of Americans to seek redress through their own civil efforts in a tort lawsuit.
But BIg LAW has become a shakedown racket.
Mr. Edwards earned $60 million fortune extorting 33% and every thin dime of that fortune came from the proceeds due to poor defendants.
So that miserable S.O.B. has stolen $60 million from the poor. If he were so concerned with helping the “poor”, he could have chosen to accept only 10% or $20 million dollars,as fees. Surely enough to “feed his family”!
I have little sympathy for the 500 attorneys who split a cool $250 million as fees from the proceeds of the settlement with the LA Dicese of the Catholic Church.
Note that money did not come from the homosexual perverts and pediophilic creeps that actually molested the kids. The legal creeps went after deep pockets.
I wonder how many orphanages and hospitals these estimable 500 ambulance chasers build and support?
The US is heavily over lawyered. May they all starve in abject inability in a sane reformed tort environment.
Jul 18, 2007 - 6:22 pm David Thomson:“The over-heated Mr. Stanky above is about as convincing as Michael Moore.”
I suspect that “Mr. Stanky” is a left-winger pretending to be a conservative. There will be great effort in 2008 to discourage Republicans from casting their vote. Inevitably, there will be a sex scandal or something similar released to the MSM a short time before the election. Will religious conservative allow themselves to be conned by such tactics?
Jul 18, 2007 - 9:17 pm Phil:Rod T,
Be careful. I live in Chicago and while I’m not a gun owner (i basically can’t be here) and not a member of the NRA, I’m probably to the right of them on gun issues. Granted, I’m probably a minority here in that regard but Chicago at least is in the Midwest, not on the coasts.
Jul 18, 2007 - 10:24 pm Blady:Look at his record so far… Penn campaign chair busted for bribery. La campaign chair confesses to prostitution. SC campaign chair arrested for distrib cocaine. Close friend, biz partner and ex-NYC police chief doing time for public corruption.
He is anti trad family, pro-disposable wives (married 3x, first time to his own cousin), pro-abortion, and thinks gays should have their own special rights.
He is anti-sovereignty, pro-amnesty, pro-Can-Am-Mex merger, and part of cartel seizing 100s of thousands of square miles of private land for a NAFTA super tollway that is owned by a foreign (Spanish) company
He is tied to the mob.
He has no foreign policy experience.
Sure, he’s the conservative’s conservative.
Jul 19, 2007 - 5:50 am Oneder:Please have a look at Ron Paul for honesty, truth and freedom, a trait sadly lacking in ALL the other candidates!
Don’t fly Rudy!
Jul 19, 2007 - 7:28 am Oneder:If you want truth, honesty and freedom then you should be looking at Ron Paul as your number 1 choice.
Don’t go flying on certain days Rudy, but I’m sure you will be warned in advance,eh!
Jul 19, 2007 - 7:34 am davecatbone:Rudy, if you’ll come out and say the SCOTUS should decide 2nd amendment issues and not the Exec branch, you’ll have an easier time.
Jul 19, 2007 - 9:53 am David McKeeman:Rudy is perhaps the only true conservative candidate running for President. Do not confuse his stand on abortion as liberal, he stated he opposes it personally but would uphold the law whether Roe is affimed or repealed. Same for gun rights. He has stated no single issue would be used as a litmus test for judicial appointments. That is more constitutionaly correct than saying I will select judges who will pepetulate my own biases.He has it right on econmics, taxes, national defense, welfare, border protection, judicial restraint, judicial appointments.He is a proven manager with tangible results on most of these isssues while governor in NYC.
Jul 19, 2007 - 12:06 pm Marky Barky:He has been tested under fire and proved to be strong, reliable and consistent.
Do not confuse Ron Paul’s ranting as conservative. He is a radical libertarian who is against everything. He would endanger America when it comes to being on offense against terrorism.
As the “Legal” American public continues to have their constitutional rights bled from the very arteries that so many patriots died to protect, how is that we ignore the means by which those liberties were secured? I hesitate to imgine the mockery of American spirit and might that would insue as the de-fanged submissive, politically correct fail in their attempt to over throw a tyrant. Constitutional scholars have sided with the individual right to keep and bare arms. Americans who understnd and love there liberties stand and be counted, by the votes you cast.
Jul 19, 2007 - 2:09 pm Anthony (Los Angeles):Constitutional scholars have sided with the individual right to keep and bare arms.
That’s right. Off with shirt-sleeves!
Jul 19, 2007 - 3:35 pm Marky Barky:Response to Daivd McKeeman
There are two kinds of terrorism. One where attacks come from outside an organization and the other where attacks come from inside an organization. The later seek to subvert and destory a country from within. Mr.Paul may not be effective against the former, though I can not agree, but ceretainly is a defender agaist the later.
Jul 19, 2007 - 4:30 pm Marky Barky:Touche! Athoney for the cleaver critique. I also used “there” instead of “their” in the last line. I must slow the pecking hunter and proof the postable page.
Jul 19, 2007 - 4:37 pm tommylotto:I’m a big Rudy fan and agree with Rudy on judges. However, I have to differ on some of his tort reform ideas. Caps on non-economic damages do not discourage frivolous lawsuits as much as they harm plaintiffs that are truely injured. If a jury awards more than $250,000 for pain and suffering, the damage must have been clear and serious — the case could not have been frivolous. So, what he is talking about is capping damages on meritorious cases, not frivolous cases. These caps are just for the benefit of the insurace companies.
He also referred to Texas’ new cap and the benefits it is having on doctors. That is misleading. California has had the exact same cap and all studies show that it is not having the claimed effect — it is just saving the insurance companies alot of money on meritorious cases. (Imagine the gross negligence of a drunk doctor leaving a healthy young man in excreciating debilitating pain the rest of his life, he cannot work, cannot play, cannot make love, will never get married, never have children — $250,000 is all he can expect for his loss.)
Finally, I disagree that the judge with the pants had a frivolous case. His damage claim for millions was frivolous, but his claim for the $50 for the value of the pants was perfectly meritorious. Many jurisdictions already have cost shifting statutes where a defendant can offer the undisputed amount of the claim and recover costs if the plaintiff fails to do better than the defendant’s offer.
Finally, Rule 11 sanctions are already available for frivolous lawsuits filed for an improper purpose.
Rudy I love you, but tort reform is just disingenuous red meat for the conservatives.
Jul 19, 2007 - 4:41 pm Bump on the Head:Response to Marky Barky
Cleanse the inner vessel first before seeking to help others!
Clean your own house before critizeing your neighbor!
You can’t love others until you love yourself.
Preserve God given and constitutionally mandated liberties before seeking to impose them on other cultures: is Ron Paul on target?
Jul 19, 2007 - 5:31 pm