Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Doing the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce

with 5 comments

The Supreme Court needs some serious reform. I like the idea of staggered 20-year terms in lieu of the life appointments now granted to Justices. From The Center for American Progress in an email:

Ever since Chief Justice Roberts joined the Supreme Court, corporate America has treated his Court as its personal genie, and Roberts has been eager to  grant even many of their most outlandish wishes. As soon as Roberts and his fellow conservative Justice Alito joined the high Court, the Chamber of Commerce’s win rate before the justices spiked eight percentage points above its already very high levels under his conservative predecessor William Rehnquist.

Nor is Roberts alone in his willingness to go the extra mile for wealthy corporations. A recent study found that every single justice is more likely to side with the Chamber than the justice who held the seat 25 years ago. As one of the Chamber’s top Supreme Court litigators bragged, “except for the solicitor general representing the United States,  no single entity has more influence on what cases the Supreme Court decides and how it decides them than the National Chamber Litigation Center.” This week, corporate America made three especially large wishes to the justices, and the Court’s conservatives once again appear eager to grant them.

ELECTIONS FOR SALE: The best way for big business to push its agenda is to ensure that elected officials throughout the country owe wealthy corporations their jobs — and the Supreme Court took a big step towards making this vision a reality with its infamous  Citizens United decision. In the wake of Citizens United, the Chamber pledged to spend a massive $75 million to elect corporate-aligned conservatives, and the Chamber’s right-wing allies kicked in hundreds of millions of dollars more.

Yet Citizens United is merely one part of a much larger campaign to cement big money’s control over American elections. On Monday, the justices moved on to the next stage of this effort. Public financing laws provide one of the strongest defenses against the corrupting influence of big money in politics, but public financing schemes only work if they allow candidates who opt into them to remain competitive. To defend against this problem, Arizona developed a two-tiered public financing system. Candidates receive additional funds if their opponent or corporate interest groups overwhelm them with attack ads, and thus candidates who are determined not to be tainted by the corrupting influence of major donors are not left defenseless . Yet, in a case called McComish v. Bennett, the Court’s five conservatives appear poised to strike down this two-tiered system. If they do, it could be the death knell for public financing, since no candidate is safe from massive infusions of corporate money after Citizens United.

SLAMMING COURTHOUSE DOORS: Many of the Court’s most corporate-friendly decisions create complicated and arcane procedural barriers to Americans seeking justice. The Court’s discredited Ledbetter decision didn’t literally take away women’s right to equal work for equal pay. It just created a procedural rule that made it impossible for women to vindicate their rights if they didn’t learn that they were paid less than their male colleagues until a short time after the discrimination began.

In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court will decide whether to shut off another opportunity for women in the workplace to seek relief — class actions. Class action lawsuits are brought by groups of plaintiffs who share a common injury with each other. These suits are essential to allow ordinary Americans, who often lack the resources to hire lawyers capable of taking on a major corporation on their own, to pool their resources in order to hire counsel that are capable of facing off against someone like Wal-Mart. There is substantial evidence that women who work for Wal-Mart stores shared the same experience of  systematic pay and promotion discrimination and thus should be able to bring a class action. If the Supreme Court denies them this right — which it seems likely to do — many of them will be left powerless before Wal-Mart’s legal team.

IMMUNITY TO THE LAW: Procedural victories are all well and good, but there’s nothing corporate America loves more than actual immunity from the law. Past Supreme Court decisions gave sweeping legal immunity to medical device manufacturers and health insurers, and even gave the thumbs up to a biased system of corporate-owned courts that overwhelmingly rule against consumers and employees.

In a case called PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, the justices will now decide whether to give sweeping im munity to the makers of generic prescription drugs. If the Court sides with the drug makers in this case, two women could be left with no recourse after a prescription drug caused them to develop a  horrific neurological disorder resulting in “grotesque involuntary movements of the mouth, tongue, lips, and extremities, involuntary chewing movements, and a general sense of agitation.” And thousands of other Americans could be left similarly defenseless against the powerful pharmaceutical industry.

Here is a good example of the headlong pursuit of short-term gains while ignoring the obvious long-term disaster that will result from continuing in that direction.

Written by LeisureGuy

30 March 2011 at 1:38 pm

Posted in Business, Government, Law

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The only recourse we have is to elect Liberal Senators and a Liberal President who can appoint Supreme Court judges who are more likely to be critical of the Chamber. This will take time but it can and must be done.

    Professor Weatherwick

    30 March 2011 at 1:40 pm

  2. What do you think of the idea of staggered 20-year terms for the justices, so that each president can make a couple of appointments?


    30 March 2011 at 1:47 pm

  3. This is an interesting area. In my view, first, I would let non-lawyers serve on the Supreme Court (since they already serve in Congress as LAW MAKERS) which would provide a practical view point on the Court. Second, I would impeach any Justice that strayed from a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The above measures should obviate the need for a term limit for Supreme Court judges.

    Professor Weatherwick

    30 March 2011 at 1:53 pm

  4. It is not necessary to be a lawyer to serve on the Supreme Court: no Constitutional requirement, and many justices lacking a law degree have served (especially in the early days, when law schools were scarce). Stanley Forman Reed (1938-1957) was the latest justice to serve without a law degree.

    Generally the whole case before the Supreme Court rests on different interpretations of the Constitution. Normally, that is what the trials are all about: which outcome is supported by the Constitution and which outcome would be against the Constitution.

    “Strict interpretation” is, to my mind, meaningless—each Justice views his own opinions as consistent with the Constitution. When someone calls for a “strict interpretation”, they generally mean that they want others to construe the Constitution as they do. (I base this on observation.)

    You might find this post of interest.

    I think a 20-year term is reasonable.


    30 March 2011 at 3:36 pm

  5. Perhaps the key would be to change the oath of office for Supreme Court Judges to focus on their responsibility to interpret the Constitution from a non-partican point of view. Violating this sacred oath could be considered a “high crime or misdemeanor” and could, therefore, be the subject of an Impeachment.

    Professor Weatherwick

    31 March 2011 at 5:37 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s