POP & POLITICS

Online divorce

Rise of the e-revolution, meet the decline of the family. 

The Arizona Republic reports:

[S]tarting Wednesday, couples seeking a divorce or legal separation in Maricopa County can log on to a Superior Court Internet site, fill out a questionnaire modeled on the popular TurboTax software for preparing income-tax returns, and print out legal documents.

It's a handy resource for couples who already have their divorce issues worked out but can't afford, or just don't want to deal with, an attorney or a document preparer. E-Court, as it's called, eliminates many of the errors that average people make when they try to write their own legal documents.

The online program takes applicants through questions one at a time. If a necessary piece of information is left out, the program will not advance until it is filled in.

For example, the program will ask if the applicant has lived in the county for at least 90 days.

If the answer is "no," the person cannot yet apply for divorce here and will be referred to a questionnaire seeking legal separation, instead.

If you check a box saying you don't have children, the program moves on; if you do have children, it opens new windows asking for names, custody and child-support decisions.

Other categories of concern are debt, property, spousal maintenance (which used to be called alimony), and, if applicable, attorneys fees.

And your spouse will never know:

We don't leave anything on the PC," software designer Andy Cicchillo said. "We didn't want to do that in case somebody was at home and their spouse didn't know and there could be violence."

Blowing the whistle

Thank God for Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), the best known supporter of whistleblowers in Congress. 

The Food and Drug Administration had the nerve to consider retaliating against a recent whistleblower, who told Congress that the FDA could not protect the public against dangerous drugs (he also listed a good many already on the market as being unsafe). 

His attorney, Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Project, a whistle-blower protection group, said Graham was offered a transfer to the FDA commissioner's office just before his Senate testimony. Devine said that Graham declined -- saying his life's work was to review the safety of drugs on the market -- but that efforts to move him have continued.

"The reason that Dr. Graham is surviving in his position now is solidarity beyond the call of duty from Senator Grassley and his being in the public spotlight," Devine said. "Without that, he'd be gone."

What to do about medical malpractice?

The Washington Post reports that Maryland is considering a special legislative session to deal with soaring medical insurance costs. 

Like thousands of other doctors across Maryland, Brown, a Rockville general surgeon, faces a steep increase in his premiums -- and no guarantee that state leaders will intervene to help out.

For many Maryland doctors, the hit could be even steeper. Last year, Brown paid $37,000 to insure his modest-size solo practice. Next year's premiums will be $52,000 -- at least a quarter of which is due tomorrow.

There is a stopgap solution proposed by the state's legislative leaders:

Their talks focused on the creation of a temporary state fund that would enable malpractice insurers to hold down their rates for several years. Ehrlich, Busch and Miller have voiced support for the fund, but many details -- including how to pay for it -- remain unresolved.

Miller and Busch would like to impose a 2 percent premium tax on HMOs and other managed-care organizations. Analysts say that measure would yield about $80 million a year, enough to effectively freeze malpractice premiums at this year's levels.

Aside from short-term relief, other issues stand in the way of a special session. Ehrlich has said he will support a reinsurance fund only if lawmakers adopt reforms to the legal system at the same time. Insurance companies blame lawyers for escalating malpractice payouts. Miller has been cool to many of the ideas floated by Ehrlich, which include curbs on awards in malpractice cases and limits on lawyers' fees.

Christine Neto of Salisbury is having similar thoughts. Her rates are high because of the risks that come with her specialty, obstetrics-gynecology. Neto said her bill for the coming year is $106,000 -- and she is "anxiously" waiting to see whether she will get some help from the General Assembly. "Right now, I don't have the money to pay the premiums," she said.

Neto said she moved to Maryland years ago to escape high premiums in New York. Now she is considering a move to Virginia, where insurance rates are generally lower. But she said she would do so reluctantly.

"You can't just keep running from state to state. . . . I hope the legislators are listening," she said.

This is one of those issues that you never want to have to deal with in politics.  Doctors, especially those who have never been sued (or sued successfully), should not have to pay these exorbitant premiums.  Nor should someone who goes through their level of education and does such an important job ever worry about money.  What then, about the victims of medical malpractice?  Is it enough to give them what they would have made at their jobs before a debilitating and painful injury?  "Sorry, I know you had other plans for life.  Here's what you would have made anyway, and nothing more."

Cutting attorney's fees, a popular solution, is certainly not the answer.  The corporate firms that defend doctors and hospitals know that they have to pay the best salaries in the industry (or maybe any industry) to attract the very best students from the very best law schools.  I have seen friends taken to expensive meals, sailing, to sporting events, and given incredible starting bonuses.  Lawyers who represent patients, on the other hand, work on contingency (a percentage of the final settlement or jury award).  They spend an incredible amount on the front end of the case (often overlooked, this evaluation by a plantiff's attorney weeds out most meritless cases).  Often, it is years before a patient's lawyer sees a nickel for their work.  Just as no fool would bill 2400 hours of document production for less than six figures, any attempt to reduce attorney's fees would squeeze many of them out of that area of practice. 

One of the great things about America, with it's federal system of government, is that it allows the states to be laboratories for great ideas.  There is no better example of this than Wisconsin and welfare reform, which showed the rest of the nation how it could be done.  Hopefully Maryland will find something that works for the rest of us. 

The Supreme Court versus the reefer addicts

9 states allow for use of medical marijuana.  The people who use it to treat a variety of medical ailments swear by it.  The federal government has said that it's power to regulate interstate commerce gives them the authority to criminalize the activity of a person who grows the marijuana for their own consumption.  In Ashcroft v. Raich, the Supreme Court will decide the question once and for all.  The New York Times reports that the Justices were skeptical during oral arguments:

Dozens of groups have weighed in on the latest case, which deals with users and is much more sweeping.

Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, conservative states that do not have medical marijuana laws, sided with the marijuana users on grounds that the federal government was trying to butt into state business of providing ``for the health, safety, welfare and morals of their citizens.''

Some Republican members of Congress, meanwhile, urged the court to consider that more than 20,000 people die each year because of drug abuse. A ruling against the government, they said, would help drug traffickers avoid arrest, increase the marijuana supply and send a message that illegal drugs are good.

How many of those 20,000 people die because of marijuana?  The five friends of federalism (Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor, Thomas), who have invalidated federal gun free school zones and the federal rape statute, would probably stick together on this if it were anything other than marijuana. 

If Angel Raich is, in fact, a criminal, then perhaps the Commerce Clause is, as Judge Alex Kozinski says, "The 'you can do whatever you want' clause."

The Jordan bunch

Michael Jordans brother is delaying retirement and heading to Iraq.  Meanwhile, his son is dominating high school basketball. 

SCOTUS takes a pass

The Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal, from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusettes, over the issue of gay marriage. 

The art of ivy league warfare

Rather than initiate fisticuffs, the sophisticates of the ivy league have found a superior way to resolve their differences, and have quite outdone themselves. 

For all of us who did not go to an ivy league school, pay attention: at the Yale/Harvard football game, a group of Yale students dressed as the Harvard pep squad passed out signs to Harvard fans.  They were told the signs, when collectively lifted up, would spell out something good.  They did not.  With five minutes to go, the Harvard section at the game collectively proclaimed, "we suck."  Genius. 

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the tip.

The Artest doctrine

Per the Arizona Republic:

It makes no sense for so many Americans to be angry with basketball star Ron Artest, a man whose approach to life and professional sports epitomizes the new American philosophy of self-defense, defiance and pre-emption. Rather than calling Artest an undisciplined thug, I thought we would be declaring him an American hero.

They say that a physically superior athlete should not allow himself to be provoked by a weaker, troublesome fan. Are they serious? Are they saying that attacking an inferior opponent who has been provoking you is un-American?

Does the United Nations now control the NBA? Are they trying to say that attacking someone without solid intelligence or verifiable proof is un-American? Are they putting forth the proposition that going to war with someone who acts like a threat but is not actually a threat is un-American?

After all, Artest had endured a surprise attack from another aggressor (Detroit Pistons player Ben Wallace). Are the critics of Artest trying to say that it is wrong for an angry and frustrated individual to lash out against someone who had nothing to do with the original assault?

What was Artest supposed to do? Wait for the liquid-tossing instigator to develop more potentially dangerous concoctions? Then what? Was Artest supposed to hold off until a more chemically foul drink was tossed at him? Or worse, was he supposed to allow some outside security force hired by the people who run Detroit's arena to handle the situation for him? Does the NBA believe that an American is supposed to rely on others to protect his territory? What's next? Would they expect Artest to apply some type of "global test" to a perceived threat?

Article III alumni

This is a fascinating stat:

Per How Appealing, a tale of the unveiling of 3rd Circuit Judge Becker's portrait at his alma matter, Yale Law School :

It was frequently claimed by the speakers that ERB's YLS class of '57 holds the record for most Art. III judges (8) in any one graduating class from any school, all the more remarkable because it was a class of 150.

My gut instinct on this was right, but my conclusion was wrong.  Wouldn't the class with the most Article III judges include a president?  In the modern era, two lawyers have become presidents, Bill Clinton (Yale '73) and Richard Nixon (Duke '37).  It's hard to believe that, with hundreds of selections to make, not 8 of their classmates made the cut. 

If the stat is true, however, my instincts that the "elite eight" had a successful classmate was not off the mark.  The post goes on to point out that Arlen Specter, longtime Senate Judiciary Committee member (and likely Chairman) was Yale '57, and that he sponsored many of them. 

In his autobiography, "My Life," Bill Clinton said that he appointed 20 of his Yale classmates and professors to judgeships or positions in his administration.  Could it be that less than 8 went on to Article III glory? 

On another note, Bashman points out that Yale '75 may have the highest number of alumni on the Court of Appeals:

W. Fletcher & R. Clifton on CA9, D. Benton on CA8, R.G. Cole on CA6, S. Alito on CA3. 

How Appealing is having a reader contest to refute the Yale '57 claim to fame.  Here is the email I sent. 

I wonder if Yale '73 doesn't have the highest number of Article III alums.  Bill Clinton wrote in his autobiography that he appointed 20 of his classmates and professors to either judgeships or other positions in his administration.  Frankly, I was surprised that 8 was the record number.  It would seem a President who went to Yale law and held office for 8 years would have more than 8 friends that he regarded highly enough to fill the hundreds of Article III appointments he made.  Especially considering that Hillary was also a classmate, and had friends of her own.

The best you could do?

An important point remains unsaid about the elections in the Ukraine.  After allegations of intimidation at the polls, of government workers being forced to give their ballots to their supervisors, and after a mathematically impossible turnout in areas supportive of the government, the margin of "victory" was only 3%. 

Yuschenko must have won in a landslide.