"married with children" (1987-1997), al bundy
It’s interesting that what voters consider to be a “result” often is just a policy. For example, a politician will often say, “I’m a politician with results! I passed a new gun control bill!” Now, to an economist, a result would be: a reduction in the murder rate. But, to the public it appears that merely getting legislation passed equals a result. So, when politicians talk about how, “Unlike these other guys, I care about results.”, you need to read between the lines. What they count as a result really isn’t much of a result. It’s just passing a law. As to whether the law actually does anything or whether it’s counter-productive is much less likely to be on the table.
Wow, that’s a hard one. From an emotional standpoint (and yes, we get emotional about our cases even though we’re lawyers), probably my toughest case was Meadows v. Odom, where we challenged the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires florists to have a government-issues license in order to work, just like doctors or lawyers.
Our lead client, Sandy Meadows, was a widow in Baton Rouge who never finished high school and whose only vocational skill was making flower arrangements. But the florist licensing exam was so outdated and so subjective that she couldn’t pass it. (Nor could most other people—the pass rate on the florist exam was 33%, compared with 61.5% for the Louisiana Bar exam.)
Long story short, I was unable to convince the judge to strike down the law, and when the Louisiana Flower Police found out Sandy was managing the floral department of an Albertsons grocery store without a license, they threatened to shut it down. The store had no choice but to let Sandy go, leaving her unemployed and destitute. She died about two months later, alone and in poverty because the state of Louisiana wouldn’t let her work as a florist without a rinky-dink license and a federal judge wouldn’t do anything about it. That was a very tough case for me.
He is currently doing an AmA. I encourage anyone who doesn’t know who the Institute for Justice is to do some research on them. Anytime someone says libertarians don’t care about the poor, refer them to the institute for Justice. They are purely non-profit, they don’t charge their clients, and they sue governments on behalf of people whom cannot afford to in order to knock down legislation that holds the client back from being business owners. They are highly influential and have been involved with many different Supreme Court cases (and won 80%).