Texas Supreme Court

I just finished ready John Grisham's "The Appeal". I wasn't a huge fan of the book's ending but being a law school student it sparked my interest. The book is a fictional story about voter manipulation in the Mississippi's Supreme Court election. Interested, I decided to take a closer look at our Texas Supreme Court makeup. Uh-oh; not good. If you're interested in my findings/opinions keep reading...



How unbiased do you consider an elected body made up entirely of one political party? How much debate and consideration is given to decisions when that body unanimously agrees with itself over 90% of the time? Herein lies my struggle. In Texas, Republicans have taken total control of the Supreme Court; 9 for 9 seats. This may sound odd coming from a conservative voter who votes, most of the time, for the Republican seat. Consider what this group has looked like on paper:

• The court overturned decisions made by juries in consumer cases 81% of the time
• The court ruled against consumers 84% of the time in their last term
• The court overturned 92% of appellate court decisions
• The court overturned 70% of trial court opinions
• Between 60-75% of each individual justice's campaign finance comes from law firms and energy/natural resource companies.

[Source: www.tpj.com Texans for Public Justice]

Was some of this necessary- I'm certain it was. But the numbers are overwhelmingly against consumers. The overturning of civil jury decisions is alarming- why even have a trial by jury? One could make an argument on that but trial by jury is how our system is run.

I am all for tort reform. The most common discussion around tort reform is the capping of punitive damages, or punishment for bad/non-criminal behavior. The fact is too many times someone purposely drops a can of spaghetti sauce at a local grocery store then lays next to it feigning injury. Before you know it the grocery store is being sued for ridiculous amounts. Many trial lawyers certainly have their pockets filled by unscrupulous claims. Sadly, even for legitimate claims several lawyers aren't fighting for what's fair- they fight for what's possible (I'm referring to awards). There is abuse out there and it should be prevented where possible.

On the other side, I think we can all agree that not every company out there is completely ethical. It's true that SOME company leaders will lie, steal, cheat and defraud in order to make profits. Not that we've seen any of that lately! If a company with an unethical decision maker develops a bad product they will consider the consequences. Say the company can reign in $100 million in profits with this product. They learn of the defect or bad process and consider how much it would cost them. A recall could eliminate the entirety of those profits. A lawsuit could not only cost them the profits but could also jeopardize company assets through potential punitive damages awarded by a jury. In this case the company is better off doing the recall and the consumer is safer.

Now consider for a moment if we had a limit to punitive damages. What if the cap was, say- $10 million in punitive damages. Well, our unethical company considers the worst case scenario. $100 million in profits minus up to $10 million in damages = $90 million in profits if we get caught! The profits or the total loss via a recall? The unethical company will take the profits.

We don't have caps on punitive damages here in Texas at this time. But instead of a cap we have a Supreme Court that seems to be more than willing to institute its own version of tort reform (a job for the legislative branch by the way). The Texas Court is overturning decisions that include punitive damages awarded by juries at an alarming rate. While it is not an outright cap it certainly makes life easier for our unethical company since they know that even if they lose a judgement and incur large punitive damages for their ill behavior- they can appeal to a friendly Supreme Court which appears all too willing to reverse the lower courts' decisions.

Is the jury trial system really being used? Are companies really being held accountable? Are we, as consumers, really that much safer?

I suggest two items for consideration:

1. Eliminate elections for Supreme Court justices. The "tainted" level is ALARMING. "Tainted" is the descriptive used when one of the lawyers presenting to the court has given money to one of the justice's campaigns. In business we call that a kickback! Instead, initiate appointed positions like we do on the Federal level (FYI- many states have adopted this with mixed success).
2. Tort reform should be initiated but with limits of "% of profits affiliated with the ill-behaviour" instead of an outright dollar figure.

I certainly don't want a Democratic Supreme Court in Texas. But I don't feel very confident with an all-Republican one either. For this reason I'll be voting for two Democrats in this year's Supreme Court Justice (Houston and Yanez for those interested). Maybe with some difference of opinions the court will begin to have a little less bias in its decisions.

Thanks for listening. Feel welcome to reply. Overall, it's just intended as food for thought,

Charles