I just ran into this while reading various routine statements that don't or haven't made prominent news:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 2, 2006Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan, John Marburger, Director of Office of Science & Technology Policy and Claude Allen, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Aboard Air Force One
En route Maplewood, Minnesota11:01 A.M. EST
MR. McCLELLAN: All right. Good morning, everybody. I've got two distinguished guests with me who will talk to you all in a minute. But, first, I want to bring one item to your attention, and then I'm going to go through the President's day.
The Senate is getting ready to move forward and act on asbestos reform. Asbestos reform has been a high priority for this administration and we're encouraged that the Senate may be taking this up as early as next week. Asbestos litigation has clogged our courts, preventing people with legitimate claims from being compensated. It's led to the bankruptcy of a number of businesses and it's cost our economy an estimated -- more than $300 billion. And the President strongly supports a legislative solution that is based on three principles. We've talked about this before, but let me just refresh you.
First of all, a solution that targets the funds to those who are genuinely injured. Secondly, those who are genuinely sick -- secondly, it speeds up the process for compensating those who are injured. And, thirdly, that it provides certainty in the system. So I just wanted to bring that to yr attention, first of all. ...
Q Is he going to talk about the asbestos subject in his speech today?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't think he'll have* -- because today's speech is really on the areas that Dr. Marburger and Claude Allen outlined to you all. But I just wanted to bring it up, because the Senate is looking at moving forward on it. It's a high priority for us, and it's something that's been -- that the Congress has been working on over the last few years, and we hope they can move forward on it and get it done.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060202-2.html
On a different subject, judicial nominations, the President nominated two Circuit Court candidates yesterday.
Sandra Segal Ikuta, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, vice James R. Browning, retired.A FR thread at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574863/posts is on the subject of the Wallace nomination. It also contains a few bits of information relating to Ikuta.Michael Brunson Wallace, of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, vice Charles W. Pickering, Sr., retired.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060208-11.html
High Court Overturns Asbestos SettlementThe case is Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 US 815 (1999), briefly summarized at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/815/. A "big-picture" lesson from the case is that Rules of Civil Procedure and the very existence of class action lawsuits are largely (albeit, not entirely) creations of Congress. This Congress/Civil Law relationship has broad ramifications and power, as I pointed out in the context of the Schiavo incident.
By Sharon Walsh - Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 24, 1999; Page A1The Supreme Court overturned a $1.5 billion asbestos settlement yesterday in a decision that on two fronts makes it more difficult for companies to resolve thousands of lawsuits through a single settlement. The justices ruled, 7 to 2, that a company cannot limit the amount it is willing to pay and that people in the group with conflicting interests must have separate lawyers. ...
While various courts have been extensively involved in crafting global settlements in these massive cases, the justices noted that only Congress can change the law that defines the limits of class actions. Justice David H. Souter, writing for the majority, pleaded with Congress to address the "elephantine mass" of asbestos claims legislatively.
"This litigation defies customary judicial administration and calls for national legislation," Souter wrote at the outset of his decision. In a footnote, he added: "To date, Congress has not responded." Yesterday was the third time in a decade the court has asked for the help of Congress in dealing with the issue. ...
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist - along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor - joined Souter in the decision.
Stephen G. Breyer and John Paul Stevens dissented. Breyer wrote for the two that in such complex cases, the district court should be given the discretion to reach an equitable resolution.
Although there have been various legislative proposals over the years regarding asbestos claims, none has ever made it to the floor of Congress.
"The majority of the Supreme Court is saying that if asbestos is going to be solved, Congress has to solve it," said one lawyer who is not involved in this case. But, he added: "Congress will never touch this with a 10-foot pole. The trial lawyers are too entrenched."
Back to the special legislation proposed for the asbestos issue, here are some other links, most of them being easy reading ...
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/asbestos.html
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jul/1/126075.html
http://www.senate.gov/~grassley/releases/1999/p9r10-05.htm
http://www.ocplan.com/ocplan_timeline.htm <- Timeline back to 1953
http://www.junkscience.com/july99/asbestos.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/... <- Defendant Co. thinks the 2006 bill will not pass
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/asbestos/ <- Good detail summary