Here’s some good news in what is something of a sleeper. Measure 51, a one-sided and unnecessary ballot measure that would limit consumers rights failed to qualify for the November ballot.  The measure would have limited attorney fees to 10 percent in most contingent fee cases.

Contingent fees are those paid as a percentage of what a lawyer recovers for an injured person.  They are an equalizer. While the wealthy and big businesses can afford to pay lawyers by the hour, the rest of us don’t have the means to do so. The contingent fee system levels the playing field, allowing middle income Oregonians and small businesses the ability to hire skilled lawyers who will work for a percentage of what they obtain for the client.

The measure limited only contingent fees; it didn’t limit what those who afford to pay by the hour could pay. Had it passed, the measure would have limited consumers’ access to the best legal talent by artificially limiting fees.

My son–a somewhat sardonic 18 year old–saw through it immediately. “Wouldn’t limiting fees actually encourage lawyers to file more frivolous lawsuits?” (He’s  smarter than his dad; I never thought of that…thanks kiddo, you’re doing the old gray fart proud.)

Here’s the thing. At bottom the one-sided measure would favor insurance companies, HMOs, and manufacturers of dangerous products. They don’t want consumers to have access to the courts. They know that the best way to close the courthouse doors is to make sure that injured consumers can’t afford to hire lawyers. This, by the way, is part of the Bush/Cheney/Rove agenda. And as with many other things they failed.

Thankfully, Oregon consumers knew better. We’ve come to realize that the initiative process is one that is used by special interests to advance a radical agenda. It’s getting harder to qualify measures, and Oregonians are getting more skeptical about the unintended consequences of poorly drafted initiatives.

That’s great news.

David Sugerman

Must be the summer heat, but today’s news annoys me to no end. Congress gave in to the Bush White House by providing it the coveted immunity to phone companies that participated in illegal wiretapping. Gutless surrender monkeys.

I’m particularly annoyed by Senator Obama’s vote with the majority. As a former constitutional law professor, he knows better. Guess he couldn’t stand up to the FOX news critique if he stood for civil liberties and protection of privacy.

I don’t know about you, but I get pretty nervous when we make it easier for the government to spy on its own citizens. Seems like it’s a quick few steps from there to really bad news. If you have doubts about the importance of civil liberties, consider the case of Brandon Mayfield, a gentle soul who was caught in the horror-net of the Patriot Act when investigators mistakenly interpreted fingerprints left at the site of the Madrid train bombing.

I know, I know. Al Queda presents a very real threat. I’m not being snarky. Daniel Perl’s horrible death and 9/11 and Madrid trains were very real terror events. But the specter of terrorist attack can’t give the government license to spy us, to torture our prisoners, and to lie about weapons of mass destruction.

Immunity means that no jury will ever consider what these people have done. No one will ever have to explain. Immunity leaves the actors free to do whatever they choose. And that is a very scary thought.

David Sugerman

By the narrowest of margins, the U.S. Supreme Court reportedly recognized that the right of habeas corpus applies to detainees at Guantanmo Bay. The opinion is not yet up on the Supreme Court’s website, so I haven’t been able to look at it first hand.

Maybe this seems distant and esoteric. While many of us question the conditions and circumstances of detentions of so-called enemy combatants, it seems like this may have little to do with our day-to-day lives. I beg to differ. When the Bush administration and Congress suspended the rights of habeas corpus, they chose expedience over a long-run vision of how our country should function.

The right of habeas corpus simply means that someone jailed has a right to have an independent  judge determine whether he or she was illegally imprisoned. This is especially important in situations–like Gitmo–where some of the prisoners reportedly have been jailed for six years without a trial.  For those of us who believe in the rule of law and the constitution, this is intolerable. Because when constitutional rights are suspended, there is no line that limits that suspension. Today it’s “enemy combatants” a new category that didn’t exist before the “war on terror.”

And for those who are critical of this ruling, I can only ask a simple question: Where does the “enemy combatants” line end? Does it include those of us who are critics of the current administration? The whole “war on terror” and “enemy combatants” things are right up there on my personal bill of particulars–along with “We don’t torture” (wrong!) and “Mission accomplished” (oops!)–as to why the current occupant of the White House really pisses me off.  But enough about me.

In the film, Life is Beautiful, Roberto Benigni plays an Italian Jewish guy who goes from carefree clown to Holocaust statistic. The story is told from the point of view of his young son who survives the camp, because of his father’s wily antics. The movie is so damned poignant and beautiful.

Toward the end, the camp is liberated by the allies–Americans, as I recall–and the survivors slowly begin walking up a sunny road into freedom. The end is filled with hope and tears and laughter. While there is no comparing our current situation to that of post-World War II Europe, I sometimes think about the last scene of that movie and hope that we walk out of these dark times in a similar moment soon.

I have been extremely critical of the Supreme Court in the past. I imagine that won’t end, as they often do the wrong thing. The reported vote here–the narrowest 5-4–doesn’t give much comfort. Still, it’s a good day and a good thing because our constitution means something, even in the hard times.

I’m looking forward to reading this opinion, as it sounds like those who would suspend constitutional rights got slapped down. And that is good news.

David Sugerman