Tweet
Just in case you still wonder where John Roberts’ loyalties lie:
With today’s decision in Southern Union Company v. United States, the Chamber has declared victory in all seven of its cases that have reached a clear outcome (two are additionally classified as “other” because the Court avoided addressing the issue at stake on procedural grounds, and in one the Chamber filed on behalf of neither party).
This string of seven straight victories brings the Chamber’s overall win/loss rate before the Roberts Court up to 68% (60 of 88 cases). As we have reported in prior studies, this is significantly higher than the Chamber’s success before the Rehnquist Court of 56% (45 of 80 cases), and dramatically higher than its success rate before the Burger Court, when the Chamber only won 43% (15 of 35) of its cases.
The Roberts Court’s pro-Chamber leanings — one might say “subservience” — have been noted before; in fact, the Chamber’s top Supreme Court litigator admitted in December of 2010 that the Roberts Court gives the Chamber special treatment:
Carter G. Phillips, who often represents the chamber and has argued more Supreme Court cases than any active lawyer in private practice, reflected on its influence. “I know from personal experience that the chamber’s support carries significant weight with the justices,” he wrote. “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.”
The best justice money can buy!
11 Comments
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin
Yup.
With all due respect, SCOTUS is what it is for the time being. And IIRC, both Sotomayor and Kagan have been on the “wrong” (winning) side of some of their decisions.
The real focus should be on how to stop the Obama administration’s stealth crusade to get TPP enacted. Forget the election. STOP TPP.
It really is that simple. If TPP becomes global law, SCOTUS will just be nine people in black robes. Their role will be largely symbolic.
Yes — in the Southern Union Co. case cited first here, Obama appointees Sotomayor and Kagan were in the 6-3 majority with Roberts. Breyer, Alito and Kennedy were the minority. Plenty of “subservience” to go around.
And now there’s this(a bit OT but….)
CISPA sponsor says Obama will sign cybersecurity bill
From a 43% to a 68% success rate. That’s an astounding turnaround for the poor oppressed CoC. ;0)
It would be interesting to see how the four Dem appointees have voted over the the course of these changes. People seem concerned about Kagan and her lack of a track record.
rec’d, btw!
Every chief justice since 1954 has been a Republican, but today’s Republicans are different. Ever since their 2000 coup, they’ve become as activist as they used to accuse the previous courts of being.
The biggest knock against Kagan is in fact her lack of a track record. She is a pure academic who never argued a case, or so much as set foot in any sort of courtroom in any sort of official capacity — judge, prosecutor or defense attorney — until she became Solicitor General.
Kagan’s appointment immediately took away any right anyone had to complain about the lack of qualifications of Harriet Miers, Bush’s personal lawyer, and her SCOTUS bid.
It’s ironic that John Paul Stevens was a Nixon appointee, isn’t it? Then again, Nixon tried to get Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell onto the Court, so Stevens was more good luck than anything else, I suspect.
IOKIYAIL
(it’s okay if you’re Ivy League)
;0)