Promises Promises,

Being cynical this earlier on the Governor’s legislative agenda spells trouble for West Virginians and the company’s that employee us. The Governor campaigned on the promise that he would not tax his way to prosperity. Then, the first thing he did was raise taxes on the extractive industries. They will tell you that the markets for coal and gas are so strong that the industries can afford this. What they will not tell you is that consumers, businesses and people alike, will be the ones who ultimately pay the price. Both the gas and coal industries were already the highest taxed in the region. Now they will become even less competitive in the market place simply because of the tax increase. West Virginia coal and gas will be at a disadvantage to coal and gas produced in other states. Sound familiar?

At a time when both industries were trying to grow and give better wages and benefits to it employees, the government steps in and stops the growth with a tax increase. Until recently, both industries have been losing jobs for decades. Unlike, the airlines and steel industries who fell on hard times, the energy sector has been left to handle their problems alone. All efforts to pass a national energy policy have failed, but as soon as the industry begins to turn around and do better, you can count on politicians to intervene in the progress people are making. Both the coal and gas industries in West Virginia have been doing their part to make the state a better place economically and create jobs that pay well with good benefits. The thanks they get is a tax increase that will at a minimum, stall growth.

While the Workers Comp bill addresses an issue that clearly needs attention, what would do more for the people of this state is real judicial reform. The Governor’s proposed civil justice reform is not near enough. Judicial reform is far more important than tax increases and will do more to help West Virginia than anything else. He, like some legislators, are reluctant to take on the powerful trial attorneys who have the financial wherewithal to fund enormous campaign coffers against anyone who opposes them.

For West Virginia to be truly “open for business” as proclaimed by the Governor, to come here and stay here, to create jobs and sustain them, meaningful civil justice reform must be enacted immediately. We the people, must insist on our legislature and the Governor to get behind serious tort reform or the people of this state will continue be disadvantaged.

This is about the people of West Virginia getting behind the companies they work for and promoting a better place for us all. The less our employers have to pay the government and trial lawyers, the more they can pay us, create more jobs and generate more business. That is how you increase your tax base, not by raising tax and letting frivolous lawsuits run good businesses out of the state. The guarantee of fair justice will bring jobs and lower insurance rates to the state. That will do more for the people than tax increase ever will

Woman President in Card??

On a radio talk show, the topic was: would you vote for a women President? And, are women as qualified to be President? I thought about that for a minute. You see Presidents are rare, very rare. The first criteria for becoming President are that you must have been born in the United States. Now, I don’t know how many people have been born in the US, perhaps a billion or two or three or ten for all I know. Of the billions born on US soil, only 43 of them have been a United States President.

With the chances of becoming President 1 in billions, no matter what your gender, race or religion may be, I would say statistically, your chances are slim no matter what. In fact, you probably stand a much better chance at winning the lottery. There are many elements that must be aligned properly for your chances to be improved. Over the next 200 years, there will be billions more people born in the US, but there are not likely to be more than another 40 or so who become President.

So, when you look at the subject from such a large perspective, how could any know where to limit Presidential qualifications? The constitution of United States provides for the only limits, you must be born in the US. Once born here, what you do with the rest of your life determines your qualifications to be President.

Many suggest that Hillary Clinton will run. Other than being born here, I am not aware of anything she has done that qualifies her to be President. I also do not appreciate the way she got her senate seat. Others suggest Condoleezza Rice should be a presidential candidate. Again, other than being born here, I am not aware of her being responsible to voters and budgets which would be important to me.

The bottom line is: The timing for when to US will send a woman to the Whitehouse is when a woman makes herself the best candidate without regard to gender, race or religion. When that happens, we will have a woman President. Will either of the women most mentioned today be the first female President? Mrs. Clinton does not process all of the Presidential criteria and that is not likely to change. Ms. Rice does not process all of the Presidential criteria, but that could change.

Filibustering Judges Unconstitutional

If you can't get the people or their congressional or legislative representatives to make the social changes you desire, what do you do? You lobby the judiciary, sue government agency’s or just sue anybody. Pick a judge that shares your idealogy and sue for change in his/her court. The best example is the judicial attack on religion. The constitution does not give the judiciary the authority to advance its own will against those of the people unless specifically provided for in the constitution. The unelected judges can bring about a radical new era with its decisions on social issues that were intended to be made by the elected representatives of the people.

I have tried to understand why some US Senators work so hard to prevent certain Federal Judgeship nominees from being confirmed once appointed. They seem so desperate that they themselves are willing to circumvent the constitution to stop judges from earning Senate confirmation. Filibustering a Senate confirmation hearing is a subversion of the constitution. It is clear in Article II, section 2 that the President has the expressed authority to appoint judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. That means that only a simple majority of Senators need approve a judge for confirmation. Filibustering stops the vote from taking place, clearly an end around the constitutional authority given to the Senate. What is interesting is that the Senate could stop this from happening simply by changing its own rules not the constitution, which it has the authority to do by majority.

If the Senate would change its rules of procedure that allow the filibuster to be effective in this regard, Judges would get their fair opportunity to be voted on, yea or nay. And, the President can fulfill his constitutional right and obligation to appoint judges with the advice and consent of a simple majority of the senate. No longer would certain Senators be able to circumvent the constitution.

Why would certain senators be willing to circumvent the very constitution they are sworn to uphold? Perhaps this question should be asked of them, but I find some irony that the same Senators who employ the filibuster to stop the Senate from confirming judges is often the same Senators who champion causes that are continually before our Supreme Court.

In essence, they want a second bit of the apple. What they can not achieve from the voters and congress they want to be able to achieve from the judiciary. That is why they will employ any method to stop a judicial appointment of any judge that they view as not having their since of values or social ideology. We should not send people like that to the Senate. Think about that the next time you vote.

Judicial Tyranny

The framers of the constitution never intended for any one of the three branches of government to be able to trump the other unless certain actions were taken that was clearly outside constitutional boundaries. Each branch of Government was carefully and thoughtfully designed to be independent of one another, each having the responsibility to protect the sovereign rights of each other and every other citizen. The Supreme Courts of both West Virginia and the United States cross the constitutional boundaries in pursuit of their own political, philosophical, social, economical and environmental ideology. Federal court judges consistently legislate from the bench. Today’s judges, manipulate constitutional interpretation to create law and set precedence in ways that are far beyond the powers given to them by the constitution itself.

Judges are no more honest nor do they process greater powers of judgment or intelligence than any other respectable citizen. They are influenced by the same social and cultural influences as the rest of us. That is why the constitution did not provide for them veto power over Congress, the Legislature, our Governor or the President. The courts have become far more powerful than ever intended and they have exercised their veto power on numerous occasions throughout the last 50-75 years.

Judges on the federal level are accountable to no one. Not the voters, Congress or the Executive Branch. Since they are appointed for life, there are no consequences afforded to judges who render decisions that stretch the confines of our constitution. In West Virginia, judges are elected on a partisan basis. Democrat judges rule in favor of democratic principles and republican judges rule in favor of republican principles. To be fair, they are a large number of judges at both the state and federal level who are smart, fair and understand their role in the judiciary. The problem is that the majority of judges these days seem more activists than judges.

In West Virginia, we need radical change to take place in the judicial system before there are no businesses left to employ us, doctors to treat us or insurance companies to insure us. One step in the right direction would be to allow for non-partisan election or appointment of judges. Let judge’s qualifications and ethics determine his/her eligibility to sit on the bench. Not what party he is affiliated with and certainly not because of his position on a single issue.

Consider this: Only 9 states elect judges on a partisan basis, 4 states allow joint and several liability and unlimited punitive damages, and only 6 states allow third party claims. West Virginia laws permit all of this in its court system. A virtual lawyer’s paradise. Where you can sue anyone for anything and feel fairly confident that a lawyer will get paid.

Call your Legislators and Congressman and tell them, we want our state and our nation back. Judicial reform on both a state and federal level is needed now.

Cry for Help, Real Legal Reform.

We must ask this question of every politician. If they are not committed to real judicial reform, then they do not understand the real problems facing West Virginians and the companies that employ us. Justice for all? Not in West Virginia, for here lays a lawyer's paradise. Where you can sue anyone, for anything and somebody is going to pay. Chances are it will come from a mandated insurance carrier who will get all of their money from the people in the way of premiums.

It really is that simple. When taxes are raised, the people pay. When insurance premiums rise, it is the rate payers, the people, who pay for it. Who wins? The lawyers and the few people who win lawsuits and are awarded the preverbal judicial lottery. If you are truly wronged by a negligent party, then you certainly are entitled to receive fair compensation. But never should any entity pay for the negligence of others. That is were joint and several liability is wrong and unfair. We the people just want fairness.

Think about how you would feel if you were sitting still in a traffic jam. Then you are rear ended by a driver who has no insurance. The collision knocks you into the path of an on coming car. The on coming driver, as the victim, sues you and the guy who knocked you into the path of the on coming car. The jury awards the victim $1 million dollars. Now, the uninsured or even an under insured driver has nothing, no insurance and no assets and you are insured with $300,000 of maximum coverage. In this case, you and your insurance company would be responsible for the $300,000 that reaches your policy limits. Then the victim can collect the rest from you. If you have a house, they can take it, stock and bonds, investment property, most any assets you have can be attached. Is that fair? No, but it will never change until the people of West Virginia stand up to the trail lawyers.

You see the real injustice here is that, no lawyer will take this case to trial unless someone has insurance. They don’t care who has insurance, even if you are completely innocent of any wrong doing. Just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and you will pay. Otherwise the lawyers could not earn their contingency fees. They claim the driver is entitled to something, and that may be true, but the system in this case has it created yet another victim. The person who is forced to pay for an accident he did not create. That is not fair to him either.

We the people need to stand up and let our legislators know that we want the legal system fixed. What will result are more jobs, lower insurance premiums and fewer lawyers. Don’t you think we have enough laws, why do we keep making new ones?