The chamber now files briefs in most major business cases. The side it supported in the last term won 13 of 16 cases. Six of those were decided with a majority vote of five justices, and five of those decisions favored the chamber’s side. One of the them was Citizens United, in which the chamber successfully urged the court to guarantee what it called “free corporate speech” by lifting restrictions on campaign spending.
The chamber’s success rate is but one indication of the Roberts court’s leanings on business issues. A new study, prepared for The New York Times by scholars at Northwestern University and the University of Chicago, analyzed some 1,450 decisions since 1953. It showed that the percentage of business cases on the Supreme Court docket has grown in the Roberts years, as has the percentage of cases won by business interests.
The Roberts court, which has completed five terms, ruled for business interests 61 percent of the time, compared with 46 percent in the last five years of the court led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and 42 percent by all courts since 1953.
Those differences are statistically significant, the study found. It was prepared by Lee Epstein, a political scientist at Northwestern’s law school; William M. Landes, an economist at the University of Chicago; and Judge Richard A. Posner, who serves on the federal appeals court in Chicago and teaches law at the University of Chicago.
The Roberts court’s engagement with business issues has risen along with the emergence of a breed of lawyers specializing in Supreme Court advocacy, many of them veterans of the United States solicitor general’s office, which represents the federal government in the court.
These specialists have been extraordinarily successful, both in persuading the court to hear business cases and to rule in favor of their clients. The Supreme Court’s business docket has stayed active in the current term, which began in October. In a single week this month, the court heard arguments in a case brought by the chamber challenging an Arizona law that imposes penalties on companies that hire illegal workers, and it agreed to hear two cases that could reshape class-action and environmental law.
This relationship, business law through the Supreme Court, has been the core of Roberts Court precedent. Never before has the corporate community been given such a powerful voice in the judicial. It's one of the main reasons I actually think the insurance mandate will pass constitutional muster: the health insurance companies and the Chamber want it. At the same time, we've already seen the price that the country s paying for decisions like Citizens United.
This court has repeatedly come down in favor of business over people, and it will continue to reshape America in that image for decades to come.
Never before has the corporate community been given such a powerful voice in the judicial. It's one of the main reasons I actually think the insurance mandate will pass constitutional muster: the health insurance companies and the Chamber want it.
ReplyDeleteKelo was a ruling, during the Rehnquist Court, that came down on the side of the corporate community: Pfizer. Just about every conservative and a large percentage of liberals know the Connecticut law in question didn't pass Constitutional muster. But the 5 piece of shit Justices who ruled for New London and Pfizer ruled against the Constitution anyway. Citizens United, by the Roberts Court, was a ruling based on the Constitution (that whole free speech thing; people in business are citizens too, right?). So it's still a crapshoot whether the Roberts Court will think the Obamacare mandate is a violation of the Commerce Clause, or will rule outside of the Constitution as the Rehnquist Court ruled in Kelo.
By the way, do you know what happened with that whole Kelo thing? Pfizer pulled out of the deal 5 years after New London was allowed to blight the Kelo's house. Now New London has a field of weeds instead of tax revenue from either Kelo or Pfizer. This is poetic justice for those Justices who used liberal political ideology for its ruling instead of the Constitution.
Your continued masquerade as some sort of constitutional law scholar is as amusingly bad as it is partisan under a thin veneer of pretend civility.
ReplyDeleteIf you agree with the ruling, it's "constitutional". If you don't, it's made by "piece of shit" activist judges.
I had no idea you were the final arbiter on the Constitution. I'm sure the rest of the federal government would like to be informed.
Your continued masquerade as some sort of constitutional law scholar is as amusingly bad as it is partisan under a thin veneer of pretend civility.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you wouldn't think so if you'd make a substantive argument on just about anything. Even that piece by Serwer you linked to contained a regurgitation of the car insurance red herring that liberals have been spewing even though conservatives have so easily debunked it on so many levels as to be laughable. When you say this:
If you agree with the ruling, it's "constitutional". If you don't, it's made by "piece of shit" activist judges.
Yeah, that is absolutely correct. By any stretch of the imagination, I'm right. I've proved it time and again.
I had no idea you were the final arbiter on the Constitution. I'm sure the rest of the federal government would like to be informed.
Maybe they should. Especially Obama. It would be the smartest thing he's ever done in his professional career, don't you think?
Of course not. The only substantive arguments in SteveAR land are the ones SteveAR makes, because only SteveAR is qualified to make them.
ReplyDeleteQED.
shorter steveAR:
ReplyDelete"I am utterly bereft of original ideas but that doesn't stop me from having an incredibly high opinion of myself!"
What's this? The Chamber of Commerce are a bunch of dicks? Still? Amazing!
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty certain that in 10 years or so we'll find out that the Chamber is run by the embalmed brain of Hitler connected to an advanced computer devised by the Old Ones.
I shall rejoice briefly, since this is likely not the worst case scenario.