Roberts-led Supreme Court is extremely friendly to business interests and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

[one...two...tree 2,762]

WASHINGTON — Almost 40 years ago, a Virginia lawyer named Lewis F. Powell Jr. warned that the nation's free enterprise system was under attack. He urged the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to assemble "a highly competent staff of lawyers" and retain outside counsel "of national standing and reputation" to appear before the Supreme Court and advance the interests of American business.

"Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court," he wrote, "the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change."

Mr. Powell, who joined the Supreme Court a year later in 1972 and died in 1998, got his wish — and never more so than with the court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

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.

The chamber had urged the court to hear both cases. It said one of them, an enormous sex-discrimination class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart, posed "grave risks for American business." It said the other, a suit by eight states against power companies over carbon dioxide emissions, "has potentially disastrous implications for the U.S. business community."

The court's docket is studded with other important business cases as well, including ones concerning consumer class-action suits and claims of employment discrimination and securities fraud. The chamber has filed supporting briefs in all of them. In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, for instance, the chamber urged the court to allow companies to use standard-form contracts that in essence forbid consumers who sign them from pursuing class-action suits. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, the chamber asked the court to forbid some employment discrimination claims, saying that "it costs, on average, over $120,000 just to defend a wrongful-discharge claim."

Next month, the court will hear arguments in 11 cases. The chamber says it will file briefs in seven of them.

http://www.nytimes.c...=1&ref=politics

[The_Dude 1,142]

It really doesn't take a genius to make this assertion. Just look at how they ruled giving 'corporate citizens' rights to donate money to politicians......

[Danno 1,228]

"Whats good for business is good for America"

[The_Dude 1,142]

Danno, I find it a bit disturbing that you put your fantasy as a signature file.

[james&olya 1,121]

Danno, I find it a bit disturbing that you put your fantasy as a signature file.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It really doesn't take a genius to make this assertion. Just look at how they ruled giving 'corporate citizens' rights to donate money to politicians......

that's not what they ruled and you know it. They even told congress to re-write the law to encompass corporate interests and make sure it didn't effect individuals.

[Dan J 277]

that's not what they ruled and you know it. They even told congress to re-write the law to encompass corporate interests and make sure it didn't effect individuals.

The way they went about making that decision was judicial activism at its best. They had the opportunity to make a narrow decision on the case present, but they sent it back to be re-argued so the decision could be broadened.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The way they went about making that decision was judicial activism at its best. They had the opportunity to make a narrow decision on the case present, but they sent it back to be re-argued so the decision could be broadened.

If one part of a law is unconstitutional, the entire law is and needs to be re-argued. That's not judicial activism, that's the court that was setup with the 1998 decision by the Supreme Court on the President and the line-item veto.... You cannot cherry pick parts of a bill. So it stands the SCOTUS cannot either based on their own ruling.

Which, they are right really. This is why I am a strongly against large bills that contain a multitude of items...

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, I find it a bit disturbing that you put your fantasy as a signature file.

Dude, if I am going to have the Government feel me up... I want a well experienced hand doing it...... can't think of a more experienced hand at this sorta thing than Barney Frwank..... so he is my first choice.

(don't get your feelings hurt... you are still second)

[luckytxn 2,265]

They ruled that it is free speech which is in the constitution. The Roberts courts ruled something as constitutional so they were right. We do have free speech in this country and trying to deprive one aspect of this country that right is very wrong.