C-L looks at fairness of Supreme Court

The Clarion-Ledger took a surface look at the state of our court system on Sunday. Included were:

• A column by corporate defense attorney Alex A. Alston Jr.
• Marshall Ramsey’s cartoon
• An editorial that was only half right

This post may be a bit long, but I think it is important to look at each piece separately. What is presented by the C-L goes to the heart of what Kitch’s race is all about.

Alex A. Alston Jr. column

The C-L’s look at the state of the courts hinges on this column. Alston is an attorney whose main job is defending corporations. That means, in Republican or U.S. Chamber speak, that he is “one of the good guys”, not some nasty ol’ trial lawyer.

Truth be told, Alston does have a reputation as being a respected attorney who has practiced on both sides and who believes our judicial system should be fair to all parties — whether they be individuals claiming to be wronged or corporations claiming to have done no wrong.

Alston studied four-and-a-half years of Supreme Court rulings for a book he is writing. During this study, he found two striking facts:

1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of defendants 88 percent of the time in appeals where a jury finds a business negligent and awards an individual damages.
2. The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled in favor of an individual in an appeal where a jury found the business was not negligent. (Note: These appeals were filed where an error was thought to have been made by the lower court judge during the course of the trial.)

Let me make this clear: If you are a business and a jury finds you negligent and that your negligence caused damage to an individual, don’t worry about it. You can appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court, and almost 9 out of 10 times you’ll be let off scott free.

That’s not balanced. That’s an activist court. That’s a court who feels a judge’s personal preference should be held in higher regard than the decision made by a jury.

And let me point out that the tide changed from few jury verdicts being overturned to virtually every jury verdict being overturned approximately 4 years ago. Here’s something that is most certainly not a coincidence:

Jim Smith became chief justice on April 1, 2004, just more than four years ago. Talk about an April Fools joke on the people of Mississippi!

Marshall Ramsey cartoon

I love Marshall Ramsey. I read his blog daily. He’s got the coolest blog at the C-L, with The Blog coming in a close second.

That said, nothing could be truer, save maybe John Grisham’s The Appeal. Big Business stands behind Lady Justice, and they pull the strings.

With the current one-sided make-up of the court, you could repeal every tort reform law in Mississippi, and it would make no difference. A majority of the justices on the Mississippi Supreme Court are 100-percent behind Big Business.

It is quite clear that these justices care first about the economic well-being of the corporate donors who support their campaigns, and second — a distant second — about the rights of individuals.

Now, the solution is not to have an unbalanced court that swings the other way. The answer is to have a court made up of men and women who find justice in the laws of our state, not in the dollar signs of their donors.

Kitch’s background — a former district attorney, a small business owner, an attorney of 40 years who has represented individuals and their interests — proves he has what it takes to be fair to any party who stands before him.

C-L editorial

Here’s the kicker of the editorial:

If, as Alston claims, the court is ruling against Mississippi juries 88 percent of the time when they reach verdicts against corporate defendants in favor of victims and that appeals of jury verdicts in favor of corporations and medical interests by victims fail 100 percent of the time, something is systemically and fundamentally wrong.

These numbers call into question the validity of whether Mississippians are truly getting justice from juries of their peers — or whether the broken judicial election system is condemning Mississippians to the best appellate justice that money can buy.

First, the Clarion-Ledger is better than this. If they wanted to see whether or not Alston’s numbers are correct, they could do so. It’s not rocket science, but it does take a little time.

We’ve hired a researcher to do just that for us, and we’ll get our findings in about a week. Ironically, our guy is a former Gannett-trained newspaperman from Maryland.

That aside, the Clarion-Ledger makes one good point and one bad point.

Their good point:

…something is systemically and fundamentally wrong.

Their bad point:

Electing appellate judges is an antiquated, outdated proposition.

The answer is not to disenfranchise every Mississippian when it comes to electing judges. Nor is the system antiquated, anymore than electing our governor or our Legislature antiquated.

It is really an absurd argument that electing our judges is somehow fundamentally more corrupt of a process than electing our governor. I once was of the same opinion as the C-L and Jim Smith — both misguided, mind you — but then a much wiser man showed me the error of my ways.

Still, the C-L is right. Our system is broken, but the voters can fix it.

Throw out the money changers

In his speeches, Smith likes to talk about throwing out the money changers from the temple. Too bad he doesn’t feel they should be thrown out of the courtroom as well.

This campaign will show a pattern of how the Smith-led court has made the rich richer at the expense of the individual Mississippian.

There are clear examples of how Smith’s biggest donors have benefited from his decisions, even though he has been asked to recuse himself from the cases.

There are clear examples of how Smith has benefited from the wealthiest industries in the nation, the same industries that have made money by causing their customers to suffer.

There are clear examples of how Smith has taken advantage of the taxpayers by abusing his position as an elected official for personal gain.

Smith complains he has been called an “activist judge”. It’s a title he most certainly deserves.

On Nov. 4, the voters need to return our court to a place of balance. They need to fire Jim Smith. In his place, they need to elect Jim Kitchens.