Why big business keeps winning at the Supreme Court

[Beet]

The term ending Monday lacked the sort of high-profile cases that draw wide public attention, such as marriage equality or affirmative action. Yet the court’s docket was filled with cases involving conflicts pitting business against consumers and workers. Although they do not generate big headlines, these cases profoundly affect the lives of millions of ordinary people — and the court usually sides with business.

Studies have shown that the court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is the most business-friendly court in nearly a century, and the cases decided this term only buttress that finding. Of the 19 decided cases pitting corporations or business entities against individuals or government agencies — regardless of whether the chamber filed a brief — the court ruled in favor of business 14 times, or 74 percent of the time.

In other cases this term, the court limited the ability of states to protect residents of a nursing home from being forced into arbitration; erected new hurdles for people seeking to bring class actions; and restricted the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to force people convicted of securities fraud to pay back their ill-gotten gains. In each of these cases, the court ruled in favor of the side supported by the chamber.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/06/26/why-big-business-keeps-winning-at-the-supreme-court

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The relevant question, of course, being whether or not these rulings were consistent with the law. One, I would note, that is tragically absent from this article.

[RINO Tom]

     The relevant question, of course, being whether or not these rulings were consistent with the law. One, I would note, that is tragically absent from this article.

The author probably isn't concerned with that, of course.

[Dereich]

Them trying to extrapolate some big bias from such a small sample size is just odd. The number of cases SCOTUS takes is so small that other factors are probably more relevant. Maybe the anti-business cases were so obvious that SCOTUS refused to hear the appeals. Maybe the last few years saw government attempting to regulate new areas causing more cases that are just as much about the power of executive agencies as they are about "big business."

Also, anyone trying to make the argument that this court is more pro-business than the courts of the Lochner era is objectively wrong.

[Beet]

    The relevant question, of course, being whether or not these rulings were consistent with the law. One, I would note, that is tragically absent from this article.

You mean like the 90% of people (including many "Justices") who try to argue about what's consistent with the law but just end up rationalizing their preexisting biases? At least he's honest about what he's looking at. It's disingenuous to claim that this is sort of a technical legal matter without political implications, and that a large number of cases favoring business is just a matter of random chance. I mean, in your heart of hearts, do you really believe that? Really? Besides, the sample size isn't that small. If you read the article, the latest term's cases are only the last in a long docket line from the Roberts Court.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

It should be obvious. Even the Supreme Court has been flooded with corrupting money.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Why would a business waste a lot of time and money fighting a case up to the supreme court if they have a losing argument? Lawyers eat legal fees faster than popeye eats spinach, do you really think businesses would pay out exorbitant legal costs without analyzing their likelihood of success? These cases are already the most likely to be overturned, otherwise scotus wouldn't have granted cert to hear them. Unless there is case specific evidence of improper influence, claims about how unfair it is that scotus isnt biased towards greedy plaintiff's lawyers the poors, are weak sauce.

[OSR stands with Israel]

     The relevant question, of course, being whether or not these rulings were consistent with the law. One, I would note, that is tragically absent from this article.

[The Govanah Jake]

It should be obvious. Even the Supreme Court has been flooded with corrupting money.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The relevant question, of course, being whether or not these rulings were consistent with the law. One, I would note, that is tragically absent from this article.

You mean like the 90% of people (including many "Justices") who try to argue about what's consistent with the law but just end up rationalizing their preexisting biases? At least he's honest about what he's looking at. It's disingenuous to claim that this is sort of a technical legal matter without political implications, and that a large number of cases favoring business is just a matter of random chance. I mean, in your heart of hearts, do you really believe that? Really? Besides, the sample size isn't that small. If you read the article, the latest term's cases are only the last in a long docket line from the Roberts Court.

     Justices are entrusted to decide cases without respect to political implications. They oftentimes fail in doing so, but the insistence on politicizing entry into and promotion through the ranks of the judiciary and viewing their work strictly through the lens of politics is a major factor in making this happen. I have long spoken in favor of the SCOTUS and the federal courts being staffed through some other means than by Presidential nomination and Congressional approval, so that we may create a truly independent judiciary. The problem is that there is no good alternative (or at least no good one that I know of) and no political will to enact an alternative.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because contrary to poor people, rich people actually have class consciousness and solidarity.

[The_Doctor]

Business wins at the Supreme Court and lower judiciary because that's one of the tenets of the Reagan realignment, a pro-business tilt. It happens.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And the really bad thing is that a lot of them aren't 5-4 rulings. There certainly aren't 4 progressives on the court.

[Mr. Reactionary]

And the really bad thing is that a lot of them aren't 5-4 rulings. There certainly aren't 4 progressives on the court.

Nope. Just 9 justices.

[Badger]

Why would a business waste a lot of time and money fighting a case up to the supreme court if they have a losing argument? Lawyers eat legal fees faster than popeye eats spinach, do you really think businesses would pay out exorbitant legal costs without analyzing their likelihood of success? These cases are already the most likely to be overturned, otherwise scotus wouldn't have granted cert to hear them. Unless there is case specific evidence of improper influence, claims about how unfair it is that scotus isnt biased towards greedy plaintiff's lawyers the poors, are weak sauce.

You're missing the point. The "winning argument" usually depends less on the facts or black letter law than whether it is decided by, say, Justice Thomas vs. Sotomeyor. There's a SCOTUS solidly packed with business-friendly (to put it mildly) interests. Not to mention an even more lopsided lower federal judiciary, whose factual determinations are given deference on appeal by the higher (or highest) court.

[Nyvin]

     The relevant question, of course, being whether or not these rulings were consistent with the law. One, I would note, that is tragically absent from this article.

Big business writes the laws.