A question for the Senate: What's the rush?

It is difficult to understand what passes for prioritizing the nation's needs in Washington, D.C.
One might think -- for any number of reasons -- that the Defense Department's $422 billion authorization bill, which was the business pending when the Senate recessed for its holiday break on May 21, would be the top priority for Senators when they returned to work today. One would be wrong.
No., Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced that the first order of business would be action on a piece of legislation that would limit class-action lawsuits, the kinds of suits that many senators like to call frivolous. (Speaking of frivolous, we wonder how many readers got an 11-day Memorial Day break. Most, we suspect, were happy to get a three-day weekend, and tens of millions of workers didn't get that.)
It's not that we don't think something should be done about frivolous lawsuits, such as they are. But some of the provisions of the measure working its way through Congress and the apparent urgency Frist has decided to attach to the measure are troublesome.
Legislative intent
The GOP-sponsored bill, which apparently finally has attracted enough Democratic support to break a filibuster, would move more class-action lawsuits out of state courts where juries are often more generous to plaintiffs, and into federal courts where awards typically are smaller. Class-action suits are those in which one person or a small group represents the interests of an entire class of people in court. Such suits have often generated legal fees for a handful of lawyers that far exceed the benefits that trickle down to the plaintiffs, and that issue would be worth addressing. a
But it appears strange to see conservatives arguing to take power away from state courts and give it to federal judges, the very class of jurists that conservatives say have come to be dominated by liberals and activists who are about to bring ruination to the land.
But more troublesome than timing or inconsistent philosophy is what could happen when the Senate passes its version of class-action reform and a conference committee starts working to reconcile the Senate and House versions.
Retroactive provisions
The House approved its version of the Class Action Fairness Act last year. It includes a provision that would retroactively remove virtually all state class actions to federal courts. The House version would apply to some important pending legal battles, including the securities fraud lawsuits brought by pension funds and retirees against Enron and WorldCom, among others.
The last thing the Senate should be doing is rushing to pass legislation that might help Enron's former chairman, Ken Lay, avoid a day in court against those who paid the heaviest price for his misdeeds and mismanagement.
Federalizing class-action suits is a radical approach, and one that should be taken only after considerably more debate, Frist and the Senate he oversees should not have too difficult a time finding issues that require their more immediate attention.