June 21, 2007

UNDOING THE WARREN COURT...:

High court has been good for business: A dozen rulings in the last year have been a boon to corporations by making it harder to sue them or limiting lawsuit damages. (David G. Savage, June 21, 2007, LA Times)

The Bush administration and corporate lobbyists long have sought sweeping "tort reform" to limit lawsuits and massive jury awards — without much success. But in the last year, they quietly have been winning much of what they've wanted on a case-by-case basis in the Supreme Court.

With a week to go in their term, the justices have handed down a dozen rulings that sharply limit the damages that can be won in lawsuits or make it harder to sue corporations.

"The Roberts court is even better for business" than the court led for two decades by the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said Washington attorney Maureen E. Mahoney, who is a longtime friend of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and a former clerk for Rehnquist. "There is unquestionably a greater number of business cases before the court, and [the justices] are quite willing to limit damage remedies."


Precedents Begin to Fall for Roberts Court (LINDA GREENHOUSE, 6/21/07, NY Times)
No Supreme Court nominee could be confirmed these days without paying homage to the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis,” Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Yet experienced listeners have learned to take these professions of devotion to precedent “cum grano salis,” Latin for “with a grain of salt.”

Both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. assured their Senate questioners at their confirmation hearings that they, too, respected precedent. So why were they on the majority side of a 5-to-4 decision last week declaring that a 45-year-old doctrine excusing people whose “unique circumstances” prevented them from meeting court filing deadlines was now “illegitimate”?


,,,is a return to stare decisis.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 21, 2007 6:53 PM
Comments

The decisions have been phenomenal. I never thought I'd live to see the day. I guess the Harriet Meires thing turned out ok. I'm thankful the 'sexist far right', as some folks characterized them, opened their mouths. I like Bush but sometimes he needs to be forced to think about what he's doing.

Posted by: fred at June 21, 2007 7:36 PM

Fred: At least consider the possibility that the Harriet Miers nomination had been an economy of force feint sttack. By nominating Miers, Bush set up the debate to focus on qualifications, and qualifications alone. Thus, when a highly qualified, highly conservative replacement was put forward, the opposition, as well as being exhausted, was facing in the wrong direction.

Posted by: Lou Gots at June 22, 2007 1:06 AM

Why assume Miers wouldn't have voted in exactly the same way?

Posted by: erp at June 22, 2007 7:25 AM

Not only would Miers have voted the same, but she wouldn't feel a need to distinguish herself from the majority, as Scalia and Thomas often do and Alito soon will.

Posted by: oj at June 22, 2007 7:51 AM

Roberts cobbled together a unanimous decision on a recent case regarding the use of union dues for political purposes. No assumptions are neccessary. With Meirs all one has is assumptions.

Posted by: fred at June 22, 2007 7:54 AM

Yes, the argument for Roberts was the same as for Miers: collegiality.

It's Alito who's an inferior choice to Miers.

Posted by: oj at June 22, 2007 8:55 AM

Alito an inferior choice? Not really, a worthy alternate choice perhaps? The avalanche of opposition against Miers was her non-elite law school degree and her "church lady" un-botoxed and un-made-up appearance. Frumpy clothes didn't help either.

She handled herself like the intelligent adult she is, but I hope she has a tell-all book ready after Bush leaves office.

Posted by: erp at June 22, 2007 10:40 AM

erp- Her clothes had nothing to do with it. Lack of a record to support a judicial 'philosophy' was a bit unnerving in light of past examples of similarly little known nominees. Roberts and Alito are slam dunks in comparison to what might have been even had she been as sensible as you assume her to be. Nothing was lost and much has been gained.

Posted by: fred at June 22, 2007 9:13 PM

It was just her not going to an Ivy they minded. So we got another intellectual, which will hurt down the road.

Posted by: oj at June 22, 2007 11:29 PM

Her appearance and her self-deprecating manner hurt her as much as déclassé law degree.

Posted by: erp at June 25, 2007 4:20 PM
« BAG MAN: | Main | DON'T PREDICT IT, EFFECT IT: »