SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, REPUBLICAN MIKE "THE STOPPER" BISHOP HAS WORKED TO DENY CIVIL JUSTICE TO MICHIGAN'S INNOCENT INJURY VICTIMS, HOW WILL MICHIGAN' INNOCENT CRIME VICTIMS FARE WITH HIM AS ATTORNEY GENERAL?
I also assume that Senator Bishop's passion to serve the people of the state of Michigan as their chief legal officer is based in part on the fact that he is term limited in his current office and can't run again in 2010. Mr. Bishop did try to repeal those term limits during his current term in office, without success.
Mr. Bishop has experience as a "Stopper", in fact using that term to describe his role in the Senate when he used his power to prevent a House passed bill to repeal Michigan's Drug Immunity Law from even coming to a vote on the Senate floor. Michigan is the only state in the Union with such a law, and the most recent House bill to repeal the law came after the US Supreme Court struck down the rationale behind the law in the recent case of Wyeth v Levine (not a case arising under the Michigan law).
When the immunity repeal bill subsequently passed the Michigan House, Bishop said he did not intend to allow a vote on it in the Senate. And he didn't. As he stated at the time, "There are some things I have to be a stopper for. I don't have any intention of taking this issue up." Sounds rather imperious to me. One man's power can stop remedial legislation in its tracks.
The Bishop thinks that the Michigan-only drug immunity law keeps drug company jobs in Michigan. Yet, a recent study found the number of Michigan residents employed by private bio science companies declined by 10.5 percent from 2002-2006, largely because pharmaceutical companies pulled out.
I am sure Bishop's response would be that he saved many more jobs from being lost by opposing the drug immunity law repeal. Brilliant.
The drug immunity law issue is not the first time the Bishop has acted as a civil justice "stopper". In the area of auto negligence law, insurance companies have fought long and hard to restrict the rights of injured persons to compensation for their injuries. In the the mid-Nineties Republican majorities in the Michigan Legislature passed tort reform bills twice rejected by Michigan voters as ballot initiatives. Those laws were interpreted by a Republican majority on the Michigan Supreme Court, a majority substantially hand-picked by Republican Governor John Engler. The culmination of this multi-pronged attack on the rights of injured citizens to seek compensation from those who had hurt them was the 2004 Supreme Court case of Kreiner v Fischer, which held that, in order to be compensated for injuries caused by a careless driver, a victim's injuries would have to affect the "course and trajectory" of his life. Thereafter, reviewing courts in Michigan took this to mean that only proof of a permanent, devastating, life altering injury would be considered serious.
Under the Kreiner standard, innocent victims of drunk drivers, such as Krista Gagne (hit head on when a drunk crossed the center line with his truck) were denied compensation. (See Gagne With a Spoon). Ms. Gagne, age 21, suffered a concussion, with a loss of consciousness when she hit the windshield. Her torso bent the steering wheel and her knee slammed into the dashboard. She tore her ACL and medial meniscus. This injury required extensive reconstructive surgery which occurred ten months after the accident. The dissent describes in detail the operation, including the drilling of multiple “tunnels” in Ms. Gagne’s shin and thigh, which were then filled with donated tissue, filled with bone plugs and secured with screws. This was described by the surgeon as “a very big surgery”. As to the meniscus, the torn portion could not be repaired and had to be removed. It would not regenerate, according to the surgeon. She could not return to her modest job as a house cleaner and she had to give up a very active recreational life. Her claim against the drunk driver for all the suffering he caused--dismissed. Krista was not injured seriously as a matter of Michigan Law.
The Michigan House later passed what was called the "Kreiner Fix" bill to address the injustices that had resulted from the Supreme Court's ruling. The House Bill never came to a vote in the Senate. Why? Enter the "Stopper", Mike Bishop, who never let the bill come out of committee, and punished members of his own party who tried to bring the bill up for a floor vote.
I guess Krista Gagne's fate is OK by the Bishop. This raises an interesting question. Suppose Mike Bishop becomes Michigan's AG, and is responsible for seeing that drunk drivers, like Krista's victimizer, Mr. Schulte, are punished for driving drunk on Michigan roads. I guess he would argue in front of a jury that a Mr. Schulte should pay with his freedom for all the devastation he caused a Krista Gagne, but that he shouldn't have pay Krista something really important--his insurance company's money. Mike Bishop has seen to that.
For Mike Bishop, his backer's money, and his continued political employment are what really matters. Up against those motives, justice, well, "stops".
Always willing to help, though, I found a possible campaign spot for Mike.
Comments