Since my last entry things have progressed well for the campaign. We were able to get through the Salt Lake County convention as the nominee for the Democratic party for House District 28!

It’s a privilege to represent the party in the general election. It also looks more likely that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President. We’re got a lot to do between now and November 4th. But I am absolutely committed to working as hard as I can to ensure we keep District 28 blue!

An editorial in today’s New York Times expresses concern about our process for selecting Supreme Court justices.

You can read it at http://tinyurl.com/53l7df

The identity of the individuals who end up being appointed to our federal and state courts is something that hits very close to home for me. Everyday the fortunes of both my clients and
myself are in the hands of federal and state court judges. The experiences and political predispositions a person carries with them to the bench cannot help but color their decisionmaking once they become a judge. We are lucky to, by and large, have very qualified individuals on the bench for both the federal and state courts here in Utah.

Recently, we’ve seen some Utah state legislators become quite vocal about their belief that the legislature should have greater control over the judiciary here in Utah. These individuals ignore the fundamental Constitutional principle of separation of powers. Our federal and state Constitutions were specifically designed with the idea that the branches of government should have healthy autonomy and serve as checks and balances on each other. The founders of the
country recognized that an imbalance of power in one branch of government would inevitably lead to abuse of that power. We’ve seen that attempt to gather inordinate strength to the
Executive branch at the federal level in the last few years. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’ve also seen a significant abuse of that power during the same time frame. Legislators in Utah need to recognize the limits of their power over the state judiciary.

Assuming Good Faith

Every day in my profession I represent individuals who have had their medical, disability or life insurance claims denied. It’s wonderful work. I really like being able to advocate for folks who are in difficult circumstances and have no other place to turn in getting help. Add to that the challenge of working with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the statute under which most of the claims arise, and it’s a great thing to do for a living.

I started blogging on my law firm website about two and a half years ago. Since the campaign started I’ve thought a few times about one of my first entries back in 2005. You can find it at http://tinyurl.com/699jmv

It’s worth linking to here, not only because it provides access to a great New Yorker article on Justice Stephen Breyer, but because it states well my attitude about how to handle those who hold opinions that are different than our own, how to deal with disappointment and how to keep our head up in difficult circumstances.

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Please take a few moments to remember him.

Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. laid out his dream for a better nation, a better society, and issued a challenge to us all, to embrace freedom, diversity, and the Constitution that we hold so dear.

Join me, in remembering Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., join me in celebrating his vision, and his hope for change, and embrace his dream, and listen to his famous speech, "I have a dream"

Today is National Autism Awareness Day. Coincidentally, I met with our own Carmen Pingree this morning and we had a discussion about several things. Most of you are probably aware of her unceasing efforts to provide greater awareness of and resources for dealing with autism in our state. As one of the results of her work, we have the Carmen B. Pingree Center for Children with Autism located right outside our district on Guardsman Way.

Talking to Carmen reminded me of the degree to which we sorely need representatives at the legislature who will step forward to make sure that the needs of individuals in our community who are disabled or have behavioral or mental disorders don’t fall through the cracks.

There are plenty of folks who want to step right up and proclaim that they or someone they know is a “self-made” man or woman. Nothing could be further from the truth. We can’t get through life without help every single day from a wide variety of family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and complete strangers. Carmen’s work stands as a tribute that illustrates both ends of our social spectrum: our near complete reliance on other human beings and the difference one person can make in this world through perseverance.

Interesting article about happiness in the latest issue of The Economist. It discusses the correlation between political extremism and how people evaluate their own happiness:

...extremists of both sides are happier than moderates. Some 35% of those who call themselves “extremely liberal” say they are very happy, against only 22% of ordinary liberals. For conservatives, the gap is smaller: 48% to 43%. Extremists are happy, Mr Brooks reckons, because they are certain they are right. Alas, this often leads them to conclude that the other side is not merely wrong, but evil. Some two-thirds of America's far left and half of the far right say they dislike not only the other side's ideas, but also the people who hold them.

This is quite provocative. The explanation provided has a kernel of truth I think. But, I think another reason for the survey results lies in the willingness of the respondents to characterize themselves at the end of the particular spectrum they are being asked about rather than in the middle of a spectrum. It seems to me that anyone who is comfortable adding the adverb or adjective “extremely” or “very” to a description of where they are politically is more likely to choose the same characterization for their emotional state. It would be enlightening to see if the survey shows that those who characterize themselves as either end of the political spectrum are also more likely to group themselves at either end of the emotional spectrum. There are a lot of folks characterizing themselves as “extremely liberal” who would also say they are “extremely unhappy,” at least as to how things are going politically!

A second explanation for the survey results is that, by definition, it seems to me conservatives are more likely than liberals to describe themselves as “happy” or “extremely happy.” Conservatives are more likely to advocate for, and be satisfied with, the status quo and uncomfortable with change. Liberals are more likely to want to move away from the status quo and onto new terrain. The philosophies carry with them inherent characteristics that, to some degree, correlate more generally with a person’s likelihood of describing themselves as happy or unhappy.

I’m looking to help bring about a positive, progressive change. At least to Utah! You can find that article in the Economist at: http://tinyurl.com/3xhg9z

The Ability of a Legislature to Regulate Guns

One of the important cases heard at the Supreme Court this term is D.C. v. Heller. It challenges the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s ability to ban handguns based on the Second Amendment. That language in the Bill of Rights says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Like so much of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, the Second Amendment is simple, straightforward, and subject to a number of different interpretations. It’s interesting to note that the Supreme Court has never decided whether the Second Amendment provides a constitutional right for individuals to own guns or, conversely, whether the Second Amendment simply guarantees the right for citizens to form a militia to defend themselves.

A number of years ago, the District of Columbia banned handguns. A security guard challenged the statute’s prohibition on him keeping his gun at home. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment provided an individual right to own a gun and that the D.C. statute violated that right. The Supreme Court took up the case and heard oral argument last week. By all accounts, the comments from the Justices suggest that the decision will likely come down in favor of an individual right to bear arms. You can read an excellent summary of the case from long-time Supreme Court analyst Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times at http://tinyurl.com/2f3q2f.

But I think the important point here is that even if the Court rules that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns, that will not mean that states and federal governments will not have any ability to legislatively enact reasonable restrictions. These restrictions would be based on safety or other public welfare concerns about how guns are used. Greenhouse’s article makes it clear that the arguments before the Court about this specific issue demonstrated that the Justices clearly believe that some types of legislative regulations are important and will be allowed. That case will almost certainly not prohibit any ability for legislators to regulate the purchase, sale or use of guns.

Our Utah legislators will be charged with developing necessary and reasonable laws regulating guns in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. If I have the opportunity to represent District 28, I will be very interested in the input of the residents of the District on this important issue.

The Court will likely issue its opinion in D.C. v. Heller before its term finishes at the end of June. If you want to follow the ongoing workings of the Supreme Court, you’ll be hard pressed to find a better resource than the crew at www.scotusblog.com. Great bloggers, knowledgeable attorneys.

Committee to Elect Brian King

Welcome to the blog for my campaign for House District 28 in the Utah State legislature. I’ve done quite a bit of blogging over the last couple of years for the website associated with my law firm. You can read all of those entries at http://www.erisa-claims.com/blog/. It’s pretty boring stuff for the most part. But it will give you a sense for what I do for a living and the passion I have for representing my clients to the best of my ability.

I’m committed to making sure that our civil justice system is strong. We must have a judicial system that provides folks with access to court to hold accountable other individuals or entities who have violated legal duties. Those bad acts occur in many different ways. Wrongfully denied insurance claims is what I deal with most often in my practice. But losses caused by violations of law can take other forms.

How about a foreign company manufacturing or marketing a defective product in our state? Or a drunk driver running a red light and smashing into your car? Or an employer removing the safety equipment from a machine causing a worker to lose a limb? Most people assume nothing would prevent any of the injured folks in these scenarios from going to court and getting full compensation for their losses if they can prove their case. But in each of these situations there are many hoops to jump through and hurdles to overcome before an injured person can recover anything. Making sure the playing field is level and fair for all parties involved is a constant legislative challenge.

A big part of my work with the legislature in the past few years as a volunteer lobbyist for the Utah Association for Justice has been monitoring bills to ensure that lawmakers know how their actions affect working people in the state of Utah. The ability to directly represent House District 28 in that process would be a real privilege.