Justice Owen's Opponents vs. the Facts

JUSTICE OWEN'S OPPONENTS VS. THE FACTS

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Senate Democrats spent considerable time during the current debate mischaracterizing selected rulings and decisions of Justice Owen. For your reading pleasure, I've compiled some of the most common mischaracterizations. And being the helpful guy I am, I've provided the facts of the cases and short commentary on each. If you're interested in a case that's not here, or one that has not yet been referenced on the floor, please don't hesitate to ask, and I'll provide enough data on the case to drive you straight into the arms of Morpheus. So grab a cup of strong coffee, and enjoy.

JUSTICE OWEN'S OPPONENTS VS. THE FACTS

SEN. MURRAY (D-Wash.)

CLAIM: "In Read v. Scott Fetzer Company, a 1998 case, Justice Owen ruled that a rape victim--a rape victim--could not collect civil damages against a vacuum cleaner company that employed an in-home dealer who raped her while he was demonstrating the company's product even though the company had failed to check his references, and if they had, they would have found out he had harassed women at his other jobs and previously been formally charged and fired for inappropriate sexual conduct with a child. But Justice Owen ruled that rape victim could not collect civil damages against that company.

"I believe it is pretty clear that Justice Owen does not protect victims' rights. "

WRONG: The dissenting opinion made expressly clear that "[n]o one questions that [the company that had hired the rapist] is liable." The justices simply disagreed on whether another company - one that had not hired the rapist and had no relationship with the rapist - should also have been held liable.

CLAIM: "In another case, in GTE Southwest, Incorporated v. Bruce, a 1990 case, Justice Owen sided with an employer whom the majority in that case ruled inflicted intentional emotional distress on employees when he subjected them to ``constant humiliating and abusive behavior,'' including the use of harsh vulgarities, infliction of physical and verbal terror, frequent assaults, and physical humiliation. Justice Owen wrote her own opinion to make sure it was clear she thought the shocking behavior was not enough to support a verdict for the workers.

"It is clear to me that Justice Owen will not protect workers' rights and should not be promoted to a lifetime appointment by this body."

WRONG: In GTE, Justice Owen joined the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas in ruling in favor of the employees-not with the employer.

CLAIM: "Justice Owen's record shows she has consistently put huge corporations ahead of people. She took campaign contributions from companies including Enron and Halliburton, and then she issued rulings in their favor. Many of her campaign contributions came from a small group of special business interests that advanced very clear anticonsumer and anti-choice agendas. Critically, her record has shown that her donors enjoy greater success before her than before the majority of the court. Again, it is very clear to me that Justice Owen will not protect the rights of the people against these huge special interests and is not deserving of being promoted to a lifetime appointment by this body.

WRONG: Apparently she was referring to Enron Corp. v. Spring Independent School District, 922 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. 1996). But this ruling reflects the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas. Counsel for the plaintiff (Robert Mott) who lost the Enron case wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 1, 2002, that "I have been disturbed by the suggestions that Justice Priscilla Owen's decision in this case was influenced by the campaign contributions she received from Enron employees. I personally believe that such suggestions are nonsense. . . . I firmly believe there is absolutely no reason to question Justice Owen's integrity based upon the decision in this case."

She might also have been referring to In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2002). But that case, too, was the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas.

SEN. SCHUMER (D-N.Y.)

CLAIM: "In another case, Montgomery Independent School District v. Davis, the majority ruled in favor of a teacher who had been wrongly dismissed…"

Despite Sen. Schumer's mischaracterization, the case involved the authority of a local school board to dismiss a poorly performing and abusive teacher - a teacher who admitted that she had referred to several of her students as "little s- - -s ," and justified the use of that expletive on the ground that she uses the same term with her own children-even educators who testified on the teacher's behalf described her conduct as unprofessional.

Justice Owen said simply that the local school board was justified in dismissing the teacher - hardly a decision that is out of the mainstream.

SEN. KENNEDY (D-Mass.)

CLAIM: Priscilla Owen "joined a dissent that would have denied the coverage of the spouse" whose "spouse intentionally set fire to their insured home."

In this case, (likely Texas Farmers Insurance Co. v. Murphy, though he did not specify) Justice Owen ruled simply that neither an arsonist nor his spouse should benefit from his crime by recovering insurance proceeds. Again, hardly a decision that is out of the mainstream. What's more, in doing so, Justice Owen simply followed two unanimous rulings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the very court to which she has been nominated.

CLAIM: Senator Kennedy sharply criticized Justice Owen for failing to rule that a Texas water law "was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority."

Justice Owen is criticized for dissenting in the FM Properties case - because she did not want to use the nondelegation doctrine in order to strike down a Texas law as unconstitutional. But just last month, Sen. Biden criticized another nominee, Bill Pryor, for wanting to use the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Owen's critics seem to be saying that if you SUPPORT the nondelegation doctrine, you're out of the mainstream, and if you OPPOSE the nondelegation doctrine, you're out of the mainstream.

http://cornyn.senate.gov/releases.cfm