Some people may think the fact that the National Restaurant Association reportedly paid $45,000 to settle a claim made by one of its employees against Cain is incriminating.
The figure $45,000 struck a chord with me because, some years ago, my wife — who is an attorney — was fervently congratulated when her client had to pay “only” $45,000 in a jury award when the plaintiff was demanding $1 million, in a case that was as frivolous a lawsuit as you could find.
The person who was suing was a drunk driver, whose car went out of control and slammed into a tree. After the sheriff’s deputies arrested her, she sued them on dubious charges, and the sheriff’s department was glad it had to pay “only” $45,000.
The department was painfully aware of the uncertainty about what ruinous costs a jury might impose on the deputies.
The real scandal goes far beyond the case of Herman Cain and his accusers. The real scandal is that the law allows people to impose heavy costs on others at little or no cost to themselves. That is a perfect setting for legalized extortion.
The fact that neither judges nor juries stick to the letter of the law means that people who have zero basis for a lawsuit, under the law as written, can still create enough uncertainty to extract money from people who cannot afford the risk of going to trial.
If we had a legal system where judges threw frivolous cases out of court, instead of letting them go to trial, that would put a damper on legalized extortion.
It turns out that the women making televised charges against Herman Cain have histories that do not inspire confidence, including in at least one case a history of making similar complaints against others.
The same mainstream media whose response to proven charges against Bill Clinton was “Let’s move on” is not about to move on from unproven charges against Herman Cain.
What role does race play in all this?
It is probably not racism, as such, that motivates these attacks on Herman Cain. The motivation is far more likely to be politics, but politics makes a prominent black conservative such as Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain far more dangerous to the Democrats than an equally prominent white conservative.
The 90 percent black vote for Democrats is like money in the bank on Election Day. A prominent black conservative who offers an alternative view of the world is a serious danger politically, because if that alternative view has the net effect of reducing the black vote for Democrats just to 75 percent, the Democrats are in big trouble at election time.
In this political context, merely defeating a black conservative at the polls or at confirmation hearings is not enough. He must be destroyed as an influence in the future — and character assassination is the most obvious way to do it.
-excerpts from 11/10/2011 National Review Online article by Thomas Sowell