Blake Bailey, the People's Choice!
"When can a plaintiff win in the Texas Supreme Court?" "When one insurance company sues another."
-- from Judicial Tort Reform in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Op-ed by Blake Bailey
As a trial lawyer and civil appellate lawyer for the past three decades, I take pride in the fact that I represent only those individuals who seek my help, and whose cases I believe have merit.
I fight hard for the rights of my clients, but in recent years, the deck has been stacked against them in the Texas Supreme Court.
I say this because several times, in trying to settle cases through mediation, insurance company representatives have told me they weren’t concerned about the outcome of a jury trial because an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court virtually assured them a victory. --READ MORE
Meet the Candidate
Issue Piece from the Texas Democratic Party Website
In his op-ed yesterday, Blake Bailey pointed out that Wal-Mart is far more successful appealing lawsuits in Texas than anywhere else in the country. From 1998 to 2005, Wal-Mart has won 100% of the appeals brought against them in Texas; outside of Texas, Wal-Mart has only won 56% of their appeals.
That statistic is the most staggering of a long trend facing the Texas Supreme Court: they have a controversial history of supporting big business in their rulings. From 2005-2006, eighty-two percent of all rulings went in favor of defendants. The rulings themselves wouldn’t be as much of an issue, if it weren’t for the contributions that came along with them.
From 2000-2008, the more money donated to Texas’ Supreme Court justices, the higher the chance of success. A study conducted by the non-partisan consumer advocacy group, Texas Watch, showed that the success rate among donors who gave to the justices on the Supreme Court increased based on how much the donors gave. Here’s a breakdown of their findings:
- 345 donors who had cases before the court gave less than $10,000. They had a success rate – a favorable court ruling – of 54%.
- 44 donors who had cases before the court gave between $10,000 and $24,999. Those 44 donors had a 58% success rate on their cases.
- 48 donors who had cases before the court gave more than $25,000. Those 48 donors had a whopping 64% success rate on their cases.
Justice should not be for sale, regardless of price or party. It is offensive to think that giving more money to the Texas Supreme Court justices will correlate with a higher success rate in the Court – but the findings detailed above demonstrate it to be true.
All nine justices on the Texas Supreme Court are Republican. Blake Bailey is running against recent Rick Perry-appointee Justice Eva Guzman. Now that Guzman has officially won the Republican Party’s primary race to return to the Court, it will be interesting to see how she rules on cases in the coming months – and to what extent her own donors influence her decisions.
As for Blake Bailey, he summed up his stance on the issue quite plainly in his op-ed: “The role of a judge is to dispense justice fairly and impartially, not to favor one group over another.”
Blake Bailey The People's Choice
Texas Supreme Court Website
A recent study by a UT law professor determined that the court rules in favor of the common man only 13 percent of the time. Winter, 2007
26 Rev. Litig. 1 This percentage includes even nominal judgments for the plaintiff. The study showed that the court finds in favor of insurance companies in 87 percent of the cases it reviews.
This finding could not exist without a bias in favor of big business by the Court. However, Bailey contends that such prejudice shouldn't be repaid in kind. "We don’t want unfair decisions against insurance companies. We simply want a level playing field,” Bailey said. "And we want the court to honor every American's right to a trial by jury."
“In many opinions the Supreme Court has held against a Texas citizen by deciding that the 12 members of the jury, the trial judge and the three Court of Appeals judges were 'unreasonable' in their fact findings.
"This is tantamount to stealing our right to trial by jury ... a right that is guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas constitutions," Bailey said. "Thomas Jefferson said that nothing was more vital to preserving our Democracy our right to a trial by jury ... not even the right to vote."
For the entire article please click here.
A recent study by a UT law professor determined that the court rules in favor of the common man only 13 percent of the time. Winter, 2007
26 Rev. Litig. 1 This percentage includes even nominal judgments for the plaintiff. The study showed that the court finds in favor of insurance companies in 87 percent of the cases it reviews.
This finding could not exist without a bias in favor of big business by the Court. However, Bailey contends that such prejudice shouldn't be repaid in kind. "We don’t want unfair decisions against insurance companies. We simply want a level playing field,” Bailey said. "And we want the court to honor every American's right to a trial by jury."
“In many opinions the Supreme Court has held against a Texas citizen by deciding that the 12 members of the jury, the trial judge and the three Court of Appeals judges were 'unreasonable' in their fact findings.
"This is tantamount to stealing our right to trial by jury ... a right that is guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas constitutions," Bailey said. "Thomas Jefferson said that nothing was more vital to preserving our Democracy our right to a trial by jury ... not even the right to vote."
For the entire article please click here.
