Miles's blog

I mean seriously. You have to read this one to believe it. Two grown children sued their mother for causing them emotional distress by being a bad parent. Maybe you could understand it if she beat them, locked them under the stairs, or kidnapped them in violation of a court order. However, this was nothing like that. The children alleged their mother failed to give them money for their birthdays, told her son to wear his seat belt or else she would call the police, and called her daughter to come home early from homecoming. Early was midnight. The trial court threw this garbage out and the appellate court upheld that ruling.

However, according to one report, the mother cannot get attorneys fees. The kids’ attorney’s fees? No problem, they were represented by their father, who had won a child custody case against the mother when the two were children.

This is why people lose respect for attorneys as a profession. As far as I am concerned not only should the prevailing mother be allowed to collect attorney’s fees for defending a frivolous action, she should be allowed punitive damages, and the father should face disciplinary action. He won’t. Lawyers who pull crap like this never face disciplinary action. (I will resist the temptation here to go into a diatribe about attorney discipline.)

Can you imagine if this kind of ridiculous bullshit found a sympathetic judicial ear? I am pretty sure I failed to get Meg a birthday present this year. That would be worth a few thousand dollars in emotional distress. I remember when she was about 12 she was in acting camp and gave a monologue at the camp’s performance. I had to miss it because I was judging in night court (and thus, solidifying my credentials for Supreme Court justice). Certainly, Meg’s psyche was severely damaged. I mean come on.

When did people get the idea the answer to everything is a lawsuit? It seems every issue in American life ends up in front of judges. Believe Colorado schools aren’t properly funded? File a lawsuit relying upon a vague statement of principle in the state constitution to force more funding. Think Obamacare is a bad idea? Get your Attorney General to sue the federal government and that way the tax dollars you whine are being wasted can be spent to pay for attorneys on both sides. Concerned that some insignificant rodent will lose its habitat if we build a dam to make life better for millions? Have a federal judge enjoin the whole thing for decades to figure out how to save the thing that you would set a trap for if it came in your house. On and on and on.

I know lots of judges. Many of my best friends are judges. Judges are by and large, smart, impartial, and dedicated to applying the law the way they believe is correct. However, I am not convinced that judges should resolve every single problem people have with each other. Sometimes, you just have to take your lumps. I mean really, should judges be deciding whether some school’s dress code is too restrictive? I don’t want the government to violate anyone’s constitutional rights, but how minute should that protection be?

I understand protecting constitutional rights. When drafting legislation it was one of my primary concerns. (For those of you turned off by my arrogance now would be a good time to stop reading. I am going to blow my own horn here and it will get pretty deep in a second.) The best drafting I think I ever did was the funeral protest bill of 2006. Everyone knows about the Phelps church people who picket the funerals of soldiers all across America in some kind of protest about homosexuality. Following one of these disgusting (but constitutional) displays in Colorado, the legislature wanted to pass legislation to stop it. The first bill I saw I felt was clearly an unconstitutional violation of free speech. After a great deal of research I drafted some legislation I think would allow restraints on their behavior, but not a strict prohibition. Fortunately, we were able to get the law passed pretty much as I drafted it. (Don't get confused by the headline on the article, it doesn't reflect the copy.)

The Executive Director of the ACLU said this law as written could not be challenged on its face. Phelps and his followers, despite claiming the law would not deter them, have not been back. I mean, how good is a criminal statute that once passed never has to be enforced because the offensive behavior has been deterred? I have not closely read the U.S. Supreme Court opinion about Phelps which was issued following the drafting of these statutes, but I don’t believe most of what I drafted would be subject to attack. But I am sure, someday, its constitutionality will be determined by a panel of judges.

# posted by Miles Madorin : 8:11 PM