Tuesday, September 18, 2007


Corrie versus Caterpillar, Figuratively

The Ninth Circuit seized upon the fact that the US Government pays for all the Caterpillar big bulldozers shipped to the Israeli Defense Force, which sometimes uses them to destroy houses punitively (houses not people), to rule that the lawsuit by rabid, but apparently slow, America hater Rachel Corrie involved a political question and the Constitution required that it be dismissed (which the District Court had done). Taken out in a Rule 12 b motion. A legal defeat doesn't get much worse than that. A lot of us conservatives who have watched the 'he's hired, he's fired, he's hired' debacle of Erwin Chemerinski at UC Irvine are wondering now if we can go back to 'he's fired' because, if he can't even draft a complaint that gets past a 12 b motion how good, actually, is his command of the law. That's not a form of political 'censorship' by a government entity, UCI, which blogfather Hugh Hewitt had such a problem with, it is merely an apolitical finding about his legal abilities. I guess it's too late though. It's not like the dean has a lot of influence over the proto-lawyers anyway.

But my question is what if the IDF paid for the bulldozers, would the lawsuit be OK then? And if it was, could Caterpillar designate the bulldozer drivers and the IDF as non-parties at fault, as we can here in Colorado? That would be on top of the comparative negligence defense Caterpillar has in spades, as it is difficult to sneak up on anyone with a D-9.


In Colorado, if you sucessfully get a case dismissed via Rule 12 (b), you are entitled to atty. fees. Let's hope the feds have a similar rule as that is the only way to deter wingnuts like Corrie.

Too bad there isn't a provision requiring the loosing atty. to share in the cost.
No similar rule, as far as I can tell. I'll tell you a sad 12 b story next time we meet.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?