Please Allow Me To Introduce Myself

I'm new to the world of blogging so it may take me awhile to find "my voice." My goal is to inform, but with a bit of bite. I get politics, but I am not overly political, I hope to entertain, but also to discuss, perhaps to leave something to think about.

I'm a lawyer by profession, but a writer and storyteller by desire. I won't go through my credentials, if curious, you can check out my website: www.nylawyer.vpweb.com I work in New York and New Jersey, the states in which I am licensed. I'm kind of a throw-back kind of barrister. I like to deal with how pieces inter-connect. I couldn't come to work each day if I was dealing with one arcane subsection, of one clause, of one statute each day, every day, day in and day out. That holds no interest for me. I like helping people, families, businesses and when I have a successful outcome, my day is made. The fact that I deal with many areas of law has exposed me to a multitude of situations, and this is from where I plan to mine my material.

While I plan to deal mostly with legal issues, I reserve license to veer into other matters of interest. Well, at least interest to me. I want your feedback, your questions, comments, feedback and critiques. The more I get the more lively this forum can be, I think.

So without further introduction lets get to today's docket:

Leading off, this week the Supreme Court decided that drug manufacturers can be liable for the failure to adequately warn about the harm caused by their drugs. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/washington/05scotus.html?_r=1&ref=us (Wyeth v. Levine)

The background of the case involves a woman, Diana Levine, a pianist, who suffered from migranes. She was prescribed an anti-nausea drug, Phenergan. It was not an issue that the drug was safe when administered properly, through an IV drip. The problem is that when the drug comes in contact with blood flowing from the heart, it can cause gangrene. This is more likely to occur if the drug is injected, which it was in Levine's case. After developing gangrene due to the misadministration of the drug she had to have part of her right arm amputated. End of career. Levine sued in Vermont and was awarded $6 million.

Wyeth appealed on the grounds that States shouldn't have the right to dictate warning labels because the FDA has jurisdiction and it would be unduly burdensome for drugs to have different warnings in different states. Of course, nothing stopped Wyeth from having one warning in all states saying that the drug should not be injected, but no matter. Suffice to say the Supreme Court found in Levine's favor 6-3.

While the result is interesting, I think it's of secondary importance. What's more important is the result is an affirmation that Balance of Powers still works:

For the past 10 years businesses in general and drug companies in particular have been, I think it's fair to say, at war with the judicial branch. Insurance Companies, Drug Companies, Business Groups even the American Medical Association have been talking up "run away juries" and "tort-reform", They have sought "caps on pain and suffering" -- also known as caps on "non-monetary damage." Their main avenue has been contributions to the Republican party which has acquiesced by installing "strict-constructionist" judges, or as they put it judges who "interpret the law" rather than "make up the law." Cute. Who can argue against judges that are merely administering pre-ordained decisions? I suppose the opposite of strict constructionist judges are judges that seek justice, but I digress.

Interestingly 2 of the 3 justices in the minority were appointed by George W. Bush: Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. Yet, despite the push the majority of the Supreme Court pushed back; it held that drug companies are responsible to people and must adequately warn. To that I say amen. Antonin Scalia, the captain of Strict Construction played this off by stating the axiom "hard cases make bad law." In this case, they don't. The case is only hard if you make it hard, and the result is fair, in my opinion you can call it justice, and an affirmation of the judicial process.

Is it possible this decision indicates the tide has turned philosophically? Possibly. In another matter reported today, the New York State Assembly voted 96-46 on Wednesday to return discretion to judges in possession and sale of narcotics laws, Currently New York, does not allow judges to consider individual circumstances in drug cases. The result is that 38% of the current jail population in New York is in jail for a drug related offense, and many of those are for first-time felonies with no history of violent conduct. The laws are commony referred to as the "Rockerfeller Laws."

As if on cue, the usual groups. they usually call themselves 'law and order' organizations, are grousing that reform will put "the bad guys back on the street." But the reality is, if the bad guys are smoking pot and have been doing so, now into the third-generation since the laws were supposed to put a stop to it once and for all, it's time to try something new. Now that New York's Senate is in control of the Democrats for only the 2nd year, out of the past 70, there is a chance the law might change. At the very least this is a legislative party considering the role of the judiciary. A positive circumstance, as opposed to the usual knee jerk "tough-on-crime" harrumph usually used by candidates in election cycles.

Don't get me wrong the Possession laws have not been changed, and may never be. But the debate is on. What is the role of judges? What creates a just society? Are we safer by just locking up anyone who may 'cross the line' regardless of circumstances? Are we better off letting judges...judge, or by implementing a code handed to them by lawmakers elected by a Democratic population? Where the debate settles, is unknown, perhaps unknowable. Just the fact that we are talking is, I believe, a good sign.