RESPONSE FROM THE AMERICAN TORT REFORM ASSOCIATION-AND ANOTHER RESPONSE

On Monday, September 17, 2007 the Detroit Free Press ran a letter to the editor in response to Bob Raitt's article of September 7. The letter was from Darren McKinney, Communication Director of the American Tort Reform Association, out of Washington, D.C. It runs as follows:

Objection

In arguing that Michigan suffers from too few lawsuits, Robert Raitt adduced recent Pfizer job cuts as evidence that tort reform doesn't protect jobs. But he conveniently omitted the fact that pharmaceutical industry plans to close some Michigan facilities were announced only after certain wild-eyed lawmakers in Lansing tried earlier this year to gut an 11-year-old state law that affords drug makers reasonable protections from speculative litigation.

Raitt also had the nerve to pretend that quotes from Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, extolling the virtues of jury trials, related to civil justice, when in fact the Founders were referring to criminal justice.

Darren McKinney
Director of Communications
American Tort Reform Association
Washington, D.C.

I sent a message to Mr. McKinney that evening, as follows:

Dear Mr. McKinney,

I read your September 17 letter in the Detroit Free Press, a response to Mr. Robert Raitt's article that appeared in the September 7 issue of the paper.

I am not a member of Mr. Raitt's organization, and frankly, I vote Republican more often than I vote Democrat.

With that said, I must say that I found your response to be simpleminded, on the one hand, and downright frightening on the other.

On the simpleminded side, you imply that Pfizer decided to move its jobs from Michigan in retaliation for some Michigan legislators even considering a change in the tort immunity Michigan currently grants to pharmaceutical companies, an immunity that does not exist elsewhere in this country. The law wasn't changed, the jobs moved from Michigan, to locations with less restrictive tort laws. For the life of me, I cannot see the factual accuracy, much less the logic of your argument.

On the frightening side, you state that the founding fathers, when extolling the virtues of jury trials, were referring only to criminal cases. You may not realize this, but the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the right jury trials in criminal cases, is followed immediately by the 7th Amendment, guaranteeing the right to trial by jury in civil cases. I was unaware that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams thought that part of the Bill of Rights was just so much foolishness to be tossed away when economically expedient. Perhaps you, as director of communications of a national tort reform organization, have access to historical sources unknown to me. I am always willing to learn.

I would encourage you to continue to share your most interesting views with the public as often as possible. Arguments such as yours can only give hope to the advocates of civil justice to continue to fight for the Constitutionally protected rights your group would so cheerfully take from them.

Michael J. Butler

To Mr. McKinney's great credit, he called me at 9am on September 18, and we had a cordial 30 minute conversation. When he called me he had just hung up with the editorial department of the Freep, complaining that they hac editted his article, cutting it by more than one-half, without telling him in advance. He stated that much of the meaning of his response had been lost. He seemed to believe that the Free Press had given Mr. Raitt and his supporters free rein, while cutting his opposing view. He indicated that he indeed knew of the existence of the 7th Amendment, for instance. I did learn later, from Jesse Green of the MAJ, that the Free Press had cut Bob's original article. I also know that at least two responses in support of Bob's article, including mine, had not been run by the FP.

We did discuss the state of tort law generally for some time, and I indicated that we would have to agree to disagree on several issues. Interestingly, he said he did not want to see the courtroom doors closed to all. In fact, he felt that a person hurt by a drunk driver should be made whole. I informed him that in Michigan, that was not the state of the law. See Gagne with a Spoon.

I ended up liking Mr. McKinney a great deal and agreed to run his letter in its entirety on this site if he would send it to me. He said he would.

It is good to talk to those on the other side from time to time. If either side tars the whole opposition with the same brush, nothing will be accomplished. Witness the Kreiner fix bill, currently lanquishing in the Michigan Senate. The Constitutionally protected right to civil justice for all should never be hostage to the short term political agenda of any party. Unfortunately, in Michigan it is. I hope they don't damage it irreparably.

I look forward to talking to Mr. McKinney in the future. He is not an evil man. We may learn something from each other.