Race Baiting, Ted Frank Style

 To most tort "reformers" Judge Roy Pearson's lawsuit was upsetting.  But the "reformers" were truly outraged by something else: The fact that the AAJy condemned the lawsuit and came to the defense of the defendants.  Unfortunately for the "reform" lobby, there were no trial lawyers to demonize in this case.  So since Ted can't blame trial lawyers for this lawsuit, he does the next best thing: He plays the race card and accuses trial lawyers of opposing Pearson's lawsuit simply because Pearson is black.  (Ted also describes Pearson as being poor, but since Pearson earns a bit over $100k per year, that claim fails.)

We're excited to see Franklin join the world of reformers and recognize that many more lawsuits are frivolous than what Public Citizen recognizes. We encourage her to read the data and arguments of those she mistakenly claims to oppose, and to scrutinize those she mistakenly thinks are her allies a bit more closely. Why is it alright for wealthy white trial lawyers to extort billions from big business using the same ad terrorem tactics (and even the same consumer-protection laws!) as a poor African-American pro se did to extort $12,000 from a small business? We encourage Franklin to examine the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's racial double-standard.

Source: Overlawyered: The Litigation Lobby's "frivolous" bait-and-switch: the Judge Roy Pearson pants-suit

If Ted Frank is truly offended by racism, perhaps he should take a closer look at his employer, the American Enterprise Institute for awarding fellowships to Dinesh D'Souza and Charles Murray.

In addition to blaming liberals for 9/11, D'Souza has also gained a reputation for being a racist for such unique writings as:

The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well. [Justinian: Wow.]

If America as a nation owes blacks as a group reparations for slavery, what do blacks as a group owe America for the abolition of slavery?

[S]egregation was designed "...to assure that [Blacks], like the handicapped, would be...permitted to perform to the capacity of their arrested development.

Sources: Dinesh D'Souza - SourceWatch, Dinesh D'Souza

D'Souza is no longer with AEI, but Charles Murray is.  He gained a great deal of notoriety in the mid 1990's when he wrote The Bell Curve, a book that theorized (among other things) blacks aren't as smart as whites, and it is their intellectual inferiority that prevents blacks from succeeding in America.  Murray based this conclusion based partially upon "studies" performed by groups not generally renowned for their scholarship:

Charles Lane discovered that 17 researchers cited in the book's bibliography were contributors to the racist journal Mankind Quarterly. Murray and Hernstein also relied on at least 13 scholars who had received grants from the Pioneer Fund, established and run by men who were Nazi sympathizers, eugenicists, and advocates of white racial superiority.

Source: Media Matters - Altercation: You've got to be taught to hate and fear ...

In stark contrast D'Souza and Murray, the AAJ and its members fights for the rights of African Americans.  For example, many of the companies that fund the AEI have been successfully sued by members of the AAJ for racial discrimination.

It's more than a little ironic for Ted to accuse trial lawyers of having a racial double standard.  He's condemning the AAJ for opposing one African American's frivolous lawsuit, but Ted works tirelessly to deprive the members of the AAJ of the ability to file meritorious discrimination lawsuits on behalf of all African Americans.

Accusing one's opponents of being racist is truly the lowest form of ad hominem attacks.  That Ted would resort to such foolishness shows just how foolish he is to criticize the AAJ for opposing Pearson's suit. 

Technorati tags: Ted Frank, American Enterprise Institute, AEI, AAJ, ATLA, racism, racist, smoking crack

Comments

[Ted]

I didn't accuse ATLA / AAJ of racism. I accused them of hypocrisy and inconsistency. Which is not ad hominem, another word you seem not to know what it means.

Which is funny, because you're the one who usually says hypocrisy is worse than any other sin.

Which is more hypocritical?

1) Race-baiting and ad hominems in falsely accusing someone of race-baiting and ad hominems, as you do in this post?

2) A frequent critic of hypocrisy announcing IOKIYATL in defending the hypocrisy of his allies?

(And if you think a 60-year-old with no savings and no car and who lives in a neighborhood with a single dry cleaner is wealthy because he ended his unemployment with a $100,000/year job that he's about to lose in a city with a 10% income tax rate, well, that explains the left's policy about taxing the middle class to death.)

"Ted works tirelessly to deprive the members of the AAJ of the ability to file meritorious discrimination lawsuits on behalf of all African Americans." is libelous. Identify once where I said African-Americans should not be allowed to bring *meritorious* discrimination lawsuits or apologize.

[Justinian Lane]

In at least two separate posts at OL, you've accused AAJ of having a racist double standard for opposing a black man's lawsuit while supporting lawsuits filed by rich white men. Look, I appreciate the attempt to hoist one's opponents by their own petard, but this attempt is just plain dumb. Very often, the AAJ represents minorities that sue rich white men or entities controlled by rich white men. A much more effective criticism would have been to claim that the AAJ is against Pearson's lawsuit because he's doing it pro se. Then you could have claimed that the AAJ would support the suit if it was brought by Mikal Watts, Geofrey Fieger, or any other trial lawyer you want to associate with frivolous lawsuits.

Roy Pearson is in the top 15% of the income bracket with a $100k job. He earns over double the median household income for D.C. He owns multiple multiple-thousand-dollar suits. If he has no savings and no car, it's not because he's poor, but because he apparently can't manage his money. Considering all the millions of Americans below the poverty line, you're not going to get me to weep for the financial woes of Roy Pearson or anyone else with a six figure salary. It's better to be in a 35%+ tax bracket than not to have a job.

What I said was not libelous or untrue. I said that you work tirelessly to:
Deprive trial lawyers of the ability to file meritorious discrimination lawsuits, which you do.

You support damage caps, loser pays, and other "reforms" which make age, race, and sex discrimination suits more costly and risky to trial lawyers. To be fair, your work doesn't *just* hurt African Americans, but hurts all Americans who might need to sue an entity for discrimination. (Or any other tort, for that matter.)

And once again, the AAJ isn't opposing Pearson's lawsuit because they think his theories of liabilities are frivolous, but because his theory of damages is ludicrous.

Oh - and accusing the AAJ of hypocrisy for opposing one frivolous lawsuit because it purportedly supports other frivolous lawsuits *is* an example of an ad hominem. It's an ad hominem tu quoque, with "to quoque" being Latin for "you too."

[Ted]

You still haven't identified the difference between Tab Turner's lawsuit and Roy Pearson's lawsuit -- except that Turner's lawsuit has even less factual merit and seeks more damages.

Not a single reform I've proposed adversely affects the ability to file meritorious discrimination suits, nor can you name one. You again repeat your lie.

[Ted]

(Note that Lane has no excuse for his hypocrisy in race-baiting while simultaneously falsely accusing me of race-baiting -- while simultaneously whining about reformers' alleged hypocrisy.)

[Justinian Lane]

I *still* haven't identified the difference between Turner's lawsuit? How about because I just heard about it 30 minutes ago? Seems a bit premature to say still.

Yes, Ted, I *have* pointed out some "reforms" that will decrease the number of meritorious lawsuits:

Loser pays and noneconomic damage caps will increase the risks for a litigant, and therefore decrease the number of suits filed.

Noneconomic damage caps will also lower the rewards of litigation with low economic damages but particularly egregious acts of discrimination.

I am not race-baiting. I've even written that I do not believe you to be a racist. By suggesting without a scintilla of supporting evidence that the reason the AAJ opposes Pearson's lawsuit is because he is black, you are in fact race-baiting.