Is Obama's Office of Legal Policy Pick a TortDeformer?
KIA FRANKLIN

<http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2009/02/is_obamas_office_of_legal_poli.html#trackbacks>http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2009/02/is_obamas_office_of_legal_poli.html#trackbacks

>From the 
<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-justice5-2009feb05,0,2531936.story>LA
 
Times:

The likely nominee to head [The Department of] 
Justice's Office of Legal Policy, Mark 
Gitenstein, worked as a lobbyist for the [Chamber 
of Commerce] between 2000 and 2008, helping his 
firm earn more than $6 million in fees, according 
to federal lobbying records. The business 
alliance has pushed the White House and Congress 
to appoint judges and enact legislation that 
would make it harder for plaintiffs to sue large 
corporations and collect large damage awards, 
raising concerns from some activists.

Gitenstein, a partner at the Mayer Brown law firm 
in Washington, was a longtime senior aide to Vice 
President Joe Biden. In recent years, he also has 
served as counsel to the chamber's Institute for 
Legal Reform, which pushed for changes in federal 
litigation rules and adding business-friendly 
judges to state courts.

The OLP advises the administration on judicial 
selection and plays a formative role in shaping 
and setting the administration's domestic legal 
policy initiatives. If appointed, Gitenstein 
would have to recuse himself from issues related 
to his lobbying on behalf of the business 
community, which means all sorts of tort "reform" 
issues. Is this possible? If you look at the 
scope of influence that the tort "reform" 
movement has had in discussions about legal 
"reform" and the civil justice system, I have 
trouble figuring out just how and when he'd not 
have to recuse himself.

Many people in the civil justice world are 
telling the President and the general public why 
they don't think that Gitenstein's recusal from 
blatantly tort "reform" issues does enough to 
ensure compliance with Obama's ethics standard. 
Public Citizen's David Arkush wrote a persuasive 
letter to the President, and below is an excerpt:

You have called for a legal system that shows 
compassion for those with relatively little 
power, but Gitenstein has lobbied to strengthen 
the legal rights of the powerful at the expense 
of the powerless. You have called for greater 
accountability in the financial services 
industry, but Gitenstein has fought 
accountability for financial institutionsÅ 

OLP's role in judicial selection also makes 
Gitenstein an inappropriate candidate. The 
Chamber of Commerce has campaigned for more than 
thirty years to populate the courts with 
pro-business judicial activists-and in particular 
judges who enact its vision of "legal reform." A 
lobbyist for the Chamber on those very issues 
should not be put in a position to influence the 
selection of judges. The appointment would create 
the appearance, if not the reality, that judicial 
nominees will tend to favor the powerful at the 
expense of ordinary Americans.

I also liked Natasha Chart's post over at OpenLeft:

[BMA is] a license for judges on a corporate 
payroll to interpret and enforce laws (contracts) 
written by corporations. You step into a binding 
mandatory arbitration agreement, you might as 
well be living in the United States of AT&T, 
because the only point of the arbitration system 
is to protect corporate profit. Justice and 
individual rights hardly enter into it.

More of our social contract is covered by these 
agreements all the time. It's a quiet, private 
takeover of the function of the judiciary's role 
in consumer protection and employment agreements. 
It's a theft of democracy that excuses are made 
for because the courts are overburdened and 
underfunded; such is the story of all our public 
infrastructure.

Indeed, maybe one of the Senators at the 
confirmation hearing can ask Gitenstein how he 
feels about the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, the 
Halliburton/KBR employee who was raped in Iraq, 
stuffed in a shipping container under guard to 
try keeping her quiet, and couldn't even sue for 
damages because of the arbitration agreement in 
her employment contractÅ If he's in favor of this, 
Gitenstein shouldn't be anywhere near the Justice 
Department's strategic planning, nor the judicial 
hiring recommendations made by the OLP.

Truth be told, Gitenstein has got a heavy-hitter 
list of supporters due to his 
<http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11402>notable 
civil rights record, including Professors 
Laurence Tribe and Chris Schroeder, and Walter 
Dellinger, and Judge Abner Mivka. But as a 
respected colleague pointed out, while having a 
strong civil rights/civil liberties record is 
absolutely critical for this position, it is not 
the ultimate litmus test for whether he's a good 
fit for the OLP. Just as important is his stance 
on other civil justice issues like binding 
mandatory arbitration.

Indeed, binding mandatory arbitration isn't just 
a consumer issue. It's also a civil rights issue. 
So how can one fully support civil rights without 
also supporting a person's ability to enforce 
those protections in the public court system? 
Under binding mandatory arbitration "agreements" 
(although 
<http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2008/03/signing_away_your_rights_no_si.html>Fonza
 
Luke's story reminds us that "agreement" is 
definitely a misnomer) employees' important civil 
rights claims are derailed and sent to often 
bogus "company courts" instead. What's the point 
of the law if it can't be enforced?

This nomination is definitely something to keep a close eye on.



Posted at 6:11 PM, Feb 06, 2009 in 
<http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/business_culture/>Business 
Culture | 
<http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/civil_justice/>Civil 
Justice | 
<http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/consumer_rights/>Consumer 
Rights | 
<http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/mandatory_arbitration/>Mandatory 
Arbitration | 
<http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/the_chamber_of_commerce/>The 
Chamber of Commerce | 
<http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2009/02/is_obamas_office_of_legal_poli.html>Permalink
 
                | 
<http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2009/02/is_obamas_office_of_legal_poli.html#comments>Comments
 
(2)                     | 
<http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2009/02/is_obamas_office_of_legal_poli.html#trackbacks>TrackBack
 
(0)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's 
"News From Underground" newsgroup.

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to 
[email protected] OR go to 
http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the 
"Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the 
page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. 

For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to