Why is predictability so important to the "reform" movement?
Here's an interesting take on why the "reform" movement pushes so hard for "predictability" in the civil justice system.
What these advocacy groups generally want is “certainty.” For example, from the article:"Justice Hunstein was very, very unpredictable," said Dan Pero, president of the American Justice Partnership, offering an explanation for why the group targeted her. There was concern, he said, that Hunstein was a judge the partnership "could rely on" to correctly interpret the law.
They don’t want justice, or proper determinations. They want to know that whatever it is that they are currently doing will be immunized. This is certainly to the benefit of large, existing businesses in the industry – whatever it is that they are doing becomes the industry standard, and de facto reasonable. This discourages smaller start-ups that might internalize the costs more – there is no benefit to such an effort. In other words, the big boys are happy with the current model of cost-externalization, and don’t want there to be any incentive to internalize them, and by extension, any incentive to compete with them on these grounds.
Clearly, such a situation benefits the big companies in the industry more than the little companies. It stifles competition and innovation by removing rewards. And of course, the big companies got big by being good at the current cost-externalizing process. It’s an advantage that is easier to hold on to than having to face true competition. (Emphasis added.)
The article also talks about how "reformers" go after judges who they can claim are soft on crime. The epitome of this attack occurred in Texas, where I recall one Supreme Court candidate being assailed for not being tough on crime and therefore not a good choice for the bench. In Texas, the Supreme Court never hears criminal cases, as those go to the Court of Criminal Appeals.