The headquarters of the US Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the المقر الرئيسي للغرفة التجارية الامريكية ، وتقع في انحاء من لافايت بارك في واشنطن ، هو الحجر الجيري الهيكل تقريبا كما انه يتطلع لأن مهيب Supreme Court المحكمه العليا . The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. التشابه وليس من قبيل الصدفة : سواء كانت المباني التي صممها المهندس المعماري نفسه ، Cass جيلبرت. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. وفي الآونة الأخيرة ، ومع ذلك ، فإن اوجه التشابه بين المحكمه والغرفة التجارية المموله بشكل مسرف أ - دعوة المنظمه ، ويبدو ان أكثر من مجرد المعماريه. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. المحكمه العليا الاجل التى انتهت فى يونيو الماضى كانت ، بكل المقاييس ، وبصفة استثناءيه جيدة لقطاع الاعمال الاميركي. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. الغرفة التقاضي مركز خلاصات في 15 حالة ، والى جانبه فاز في 13 منها -- اعلى نسبة من الانتصارات في المركز خلال 30 عاما من تاريخ. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests. الولايه الحالية التي تنتهي في صيف هذا العام ، كما تم تشكيل لتصل بشكل رائع المصالح التجارية.

I visited the chamber recently to talk with Robin Conrad, who heads the litigation effort, about her recent triumphs. زرت الدائرة مؤخرا لاجراء محادثات مع روبن كونراد ، الذي يرأس التقاضي الجهد ، التي قامت بها مؤخرا عن الانتصارات. Conrad, an appealing, soft-spoken woman, lives with her family on a horse farm in Maryland, where she rides with a fox-chasing club called the Howard County-Iron Bridge Hounds. كونراد ، جذابة ، لينة - تحدثت امرأة ، تعيش مع اسرتها على حصان المزرعه في ميريلاند ، حيث إنها جولات مع فوكس - مطارده نادي دعا هوارد مقاطعة - جسر الحديد كلاب الصيد. Her office, playfully adorned by action figures of women like Xena the Warrior Princess and مكتبها ، playfully تزين بها رموز العمل للنساء مثل xena المحارب والاميره Hillary Rodham Clinton هيلاري رودهام كلينتون , has one of the most impressive views in Washington. ، لديها واحد من اشد الاعجاب وجهات النظر في واشنطن. “You can see the White House through the trees,” she said as we peered through a window overlooking the park. "يمكنك ان ترى البيت الأبيض من خلال الاشجار ،" كما قالت لنا peered من خلال نافذة يطل على الحديقة. “In the old days, you could actually see people bathing in the fountain. "في الأيام القديمة ، ويمكن في واقع الامر كنت انظر الناس الاستحمام في النافوره. Homeless people.” لا مأوى لهم. "

Conrad was in an understandably cheerful mood. كونراد كان في مزاج مرح المفهوم. Though the current Supreme Court has a well-earned reputation for divisiveness, it has been surprisingly united in cases affecting business interests. ورغم ان المحكمه العليا الحالية لديها كسبت سمعة جيدة لالانقسام ، ولقد عجب المتحدة في الحالات التي تمس المصالح التجارية. Of the 30 business cases last term, 22 were decided unanimously, or with only one or two dissenting votes. من 30 المبررات التجارية الماضي المصطلح ، 22 منهم وقررت بالاجماع ، او مع واحد فقط او اثنين من الاصوات المعارضة. Conrad said she was especially pleased that several of the most important decisions were written by liberal justices, speaking for liberal and conservative colleagues alike. كونراد قالت انها بسعادة خاصة ان العديد من اهم القرارات التي كانت مكتوبة من قبل قضاة الليبراليه ، ليبراليه وتحدث المحافظ الزملاء على حد سواء. In opinions last term, المصطلح الأخير في وجهات النظر ، Ruth Bader Ginsburg روث بادر جينسبيرغ , Stephen Breyer and David Souter each went out of his or her way to question the use of lawsuits to challenge corporate wrongdoing — a strategy championed by progressive groups like ، وديفيد ستيفن breyer كل souter خرج من بلده أو في طريقها الى مسألة استخدام دعاوى قضائية للطعن في الشركات التي ارتكبت الفعل غير المشروع -- استراتيجية تقدميه تدافع بها جماعات مثل Public Citizen مواطن العامة but routinely denounced by conservatives as “regulation by litigation.” Conrad reeled off some of her favorite moments: “Justice Ginsburg talked about how ‘private-securities fraud actions, if not adequately contained, can be employed abusively.’ Justice Breyer had a wonderful quote about how Congress was trying to ‘weed out unmeritorious securities lawsuits.’ Justice Souter talked about how the threat of litigation ‘will push cost-conscious defendants to settle.’ ” ولكن بشكل روتيني كما نددت بها المحافظون "التنظيم عن طريق التقاضي." كونراد reeled من بعض اللحظات المفضلة هي : "العدالة جينسبيرغ تحدثت عن كيفية' الخاص الاوراق الغش الاجراءات ، ان لم يكن بشكل كاف الواردة ، ويمكن استخدامها بصورة تعسفيه. 'العدالة breyer كان رائعا اقتبس الكونغرس حول كيفية تحاول 'للتخلص من الاوراق المالية غير جدير بالتقدير الدعاوى.' العدالة souter تحدثت عن كيفية تهديد التقاضي 'سيدفع التكاليف واعية المتهمين الى تسوية."

Examples like these point to an ideological sea change on the Supreme Court. امثلة على مثل هذه النقطه الى ايديولوجيا البحر تغيير على المحكمه العليا. A generation ago, progressive and consumer groups petitioning the court could count on favorable majority opinions written by justices who viewed big business with skepticism — or even outright prejudice. منذ جيل مضى ، تقدميه وجماعات المستهلكين التماس للمحكمة ان تعول على مصلحة غالبية الآراء المكتوبة من قبل القضاة الذين ينظر الى الاعمال التجارية الكبيرة مع الشكوكيه -- او حتى المساس السافر. An economic populist like William O. Douglas, the former New Deal crusader who served on the court from 1939 to 1975, once unapologetically announced that he was “ready to bend the law in favor of the environment and against the corporations.” اقتصادي مثل شعبي سين ويليام دوغلاس ، السابق صفقة جديدة الصليبية ، الذين عملوا على المحكمه من 1939 الى 1975 ، مرة واحدة بشكل غير قابل للاعتذار واعلن انه "مستعد لثني القانون في صالح البيئة وضد الشركات".

Today, however, there are no economic populists on the court, even on the liberal wing. واليوم ، ومع ذلك ، لا توجد الاقتصادية الشعبيون على المحكمه ، بل على الجناح الليبرالي. And ever since ومنذ ذلك الحين John Roberts جون روبرتس was appointed chief justice in 2005, the court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. وقد عين رئيس المحكمه العليا في عام 2005 ، فإن المحكمه قد بدت فقط اكثر تقبلا لالاهتمامات التجارية. Forty percent of the cases the court heard last term involved business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years. اربعون بالمائة من الحالات واستمعت المحكمه الى آخر المدى تشارك المصالح التجارية ، صعودا من نحو 30 ٪ في السنوات الاخيرة. While the Rehnquist Court heard less than one antitrust decision a year, on average, between 1988 and 2003, the Roberts Court has heard seven in its first two terms — and all of them were decided in favor of the corporate defendants. بينما rehnquist استمعت المحكمه الى اقل من واحد في قرار مكافحة الاحتكار في السنة ، في المتوسط ، بين عامي 1988 و 2003 ، فان المحكمه قد استمعت روبرتس سبعة في اول اثنين من حيث -- وكلهم كانوا قررت في صالح الشركات المتهمين.

Business cases at the Supreme Court typically receive less attention than cases concerning issues like affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. القضايا التجارية فى المحكمه العليا وعادة ما تلقى اهتماما أقل مما قضايا تتعلق بقضايا مثل العمل الايجابي ، والاجهاض ، أو عقوبة الاعدام. The disputes tend to be harder to follow: the legal arguments are more technical, the underlying stories less emotional. الخلافات تميل الى ان تكون اكثر صعوبة متابعة : الحجج القانونية ذات طابع تقني اكثر ، الكامن وقصص أقل عاطفيه. But these cases — which include shareholder suits, antitrust challenges to corporate mergers, patent disputes and efforts to reduce punitive-damage awards and prevent product-liability suits — are no less important. ولكن هذه الحالات -- التي تشمل دعاوى حملة الأسهم ، ومنع الاحتكار التحديات لاندماج الشركات ، وبراءات الاختراع والمنازعات الجهود الراميه الى الحد من عقابيه - التعويضات عن الاضرار ومنع المنتج دعاوى المسؤولية - -- ليست اقل اهمية. They involve billions of dollars, have huge consequences for the economy and can have a greater effect on people’s daily lives than the often symbolic battles of the culture wars. انها تنطوي على البلايين من الدولارات ، وقد عواقب ضخمة بالنسبة للاقتصاد ، ويمكن ان يكون لها اكبر الاثر على حياة الناس اليوميه التي غالبا ما تكون رمزية من المعارك للثقافة الحروب. In the current Supreme Court term, the justices have already blocked a liability suit against Medtronic, the manufacturer of a heart catheter, and rejected a type of shareholder suit that includes a claim against Enron. في المدى الحالي للمحكمة العليا ، والقضاة سبق ان منعت المسؤولية دعواها ضد medtronic ، الصانع من القلب القسطره ، وترفض هذا النوع من الاسهم الدعوى التي تتضمن المطالبة ضد انرون. In the coming months, the court will decide whether to reduce the largest punitive-damage award in American history, which resulted from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. في الاشهر المقبلة ، سيكون للمحكمة ان تقرر ما اذا كانت للحد من الضرر اكبر عقابيه - جائزة في التاريخ الاميركي ، والتي نجمت عن تسرب النفط اكسون فالديز فى 1989.

What should we make of the Supreme Court’s transformation? ما الذي ينبغي أن نستخلصه من المحكمه العليا التحول؟ Throughout its history, the court has tended to issue opinions, in areas from free speech to gender equality, that reflect or consolidate a social consensus. طوال تاريخها ، فإن المحكمه قد تميل الى قضية رأي الآخر ، في مجالات من حرية التعبير الى المساواة بين الجنسين ، أو ان تعكس ترسيخ التوافق الاجتماعي. With their pro-business jurisprudence, the justices may be capturing an emerging spirit of agreement among liberal and conservative elites about the value of free markets. مع الموالية الاعمال الفقه ، والقضاة قد يكون ناشئا تأسر روح اتفاق بين الليبراليين والمحافظين النخب حول قيمة الأسواق الحرة. Among the professional classes, many Democrats and Republicans, whatever their other disagreements, have come to share a relatively laissez-faire, technocratic vision of the economy and are suspicious of excessive regulation and reflexive efforts to vilify big business. ومن بين فئات مهنيه ، والعديد من الديمقراطيين والجمهوريين ، أيا تكن هويتهم خلافات أخرى ، وصلنا الى حصة نسبيا سياسة عدم التدخل ، التكنوقراطيه رؤية للاقتصاد وهي مشبوهة من الافراط في التنظيم والجهود المبذولة لالانعكاسي ذم الشركات التجارية الكبرى. Judges, lawyers and law professors (such as myself) drilled in cost-benefit analysis over the past three decades, are no exception. القضاة ، والمحامين واساتذة القانون (مثل نفسي) تم حفرها في تحليل التكاليف والفوائد على مدى العقود الثلاثة الماضية ، ليست استثناء. It should come as little surprise that John Roberts and Stephen Breyer, both of whom studied the economic analysis of law at Harvard, have similar instincts in business cases. كما انه ينبغي ان يأتي قليلا من المستغرب ان جون روبرتس وستيفن breyer ، وكلاهما درس التحليل الاقتصادي للقانون في جامعة هارفارد ، قد الغرائز مماثلة في القضايا التجارية.

This elite consensus, however, is not necessarily shared by the country as a whole. هذه النخبه الآراء ، ولكن ليس بالضروره تتقاسمها البلد ككل. If anything, America may be entering something of a populist moment. إذا أي شيء ، قد يكون دخول امريكا نوعا من الشعوبيه لحظة. If you combine the groups of Americans in a recent Pew survey who lean toward some strain of economic populism — from disaffected and conservative Democrats to traditional liberals to social and big-government conservatives — at least two-thirds of all voters arguably feel sympathy for government intervention in the economy. اذا كنت تجمع بين مجموعات من الأميركيين في حديث المسح الذي المقعد الهزيل تجاه بعض الضغوط الاقتصادية الشعبية -- من الساخطين والمحافظين الى الديموقراطيين الليبراليين الى التقليديه والاجتماعية الكبيرة للحكومة المحافظين -- على الاقل الثلثين من مجموع الناخبين جدلا اشعر بتعاطف الحكومة التدخل في الاقتصاد. Could it be, then, that the court is reflecting an elite consensus while contravening the sentiments of most Americans? فهل يمكن ، عندئذ ، ان المحكمه هي التي تمثل النخبه في حين ان الآراء التي تخالف مشاعر اكثر من الاميركيين؟ Only history will ultimately make this clear. الا ان التاريخ لن النهاية الى جعل هذا واضح. One thing, however, is certain already: the transformation of the court was no accident. شيء واحد ، ولكن من المؤكد بالفعل : تحويل المحكمه لم يكن من قبيل المصادفه. It represents the culmination of a carefully planned, behind-the-scenes campaign over several decades to change not only the courts but also the country’s political culture. انها تمثل تتويجا لمخطط بعناية خلف الكواليس في الحملة على مدى عدة عقود الى تغيير ليس فقط المحاكم ولكن ايضا السياسية للبلد الثقافة.

II. ثانيا.

The origins of the business community’s campaign to transform the Supreme Court can be traced back precisely to Aug. 23, 1971. اصول مجتمع الاعمال في حملة لتحويل المحكمه العليا يمكن ارجاعه على وجه التحديد الى 23 آب / أغسطس ، 1971. That was the day when Lewis F. Powell Jr., a corporate lawyer in Richmond, Va., wrote a memo to his friend Eugene B. Snydor, then the head of the education committee of the US Chamber of Commerce. وهذا هو اليوم الذي يمكن فيه لويس واو باول الابن ، وهو محام فى شركة ريتشموند ، va ، كتب مذكرة الى صديقه يوجين باء snydor ، ثم رئيس لجنة التربيه والتعليم من غرفة التجارة الاميركية. In the memo, Powell expressed his concern that the American economic system was “under broad attack.” He identified several aggressors: the New Left, the liberal media, rebellious students on college campuses and, most important, في المذكره ، واعرب باول عن قلقه من ان المنظومه الاقتصادية لامريكا "في اطار هجوم واسع النطاق." حدد عدة المعتدين : اليسار الجديد ، ليبراليه وسائل الاعلام ، المتمرد على الطلاب داخل حرم كلية ، والاهم ، Ralph Nader رالف نادر . Earlier that year, Nader founded Public Citizen to advocate for consumer rights, bring antitrust actions when the Justice Department did not and sue federal agencies when they failed to adopt health and safety regulations. فى وقت سابق من تلك السنة ، ونادر تأسست الجمهور مواطن الدعوة من اجل حقوق المستهلك ، ومنع الاحتكار جعل الاجراءات عند وزارة العدل لا ومقاضاة وكالات اتحاديه عندما فشلوا في اعتماد قواعد الصحة والسلامة.

Powell claimed that this attack on the economic system was “quite new in the history of America.” Ever since 1937, when President ادعى باول ان هذا الهجوم على النظام الاقتصادي هو "جديدة تماما في تاريخ امريكا. 1937 ، عندما قام الرئيس Franklin D. Roosevelt فرانكلين روزفلت threatened to pack a conservative Supreme Court with more progressive justices, the court had largely deferred to federal and state economic regulations. هدد حزمة محافظ المحكمه العليا مع القضاة اكثر تقدميه ، المحكمه قد ارجأت الى حد كبير على المستوى الاتحادي ومستوى الولايات والانظمه الاقتصادية. And by the ’60s, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren had embraced a form of economic populism, often favoring the interests of small business over big business, even at the expense of consumers. وقبل '60s، رئيس المحكمه العليا في اطار العدالة ايرل وارن قد اعتنق شكلا من اشكال الاقتصادية الشعبية ، وغالبا ما تفضل مصالح التجارية الصغيرة اكثر من الشركات التجارية الكبرى ، وحتى على حساب المستهلكين. But what Powell saw in the work of Nader and others was altogether more extreme: a radical campaign that was “broadly based and consistently pursued.” ولكن باول ما يرى في عمل نادر وغيرهم وكان اكثر تطرفا كليا : جذري الحملة التي كانت "ذات قاعدة عريضة ومتابعتها باستمرار."

To counter the growing influence of public-interest litigation groups like Public Citizen, Powell urged the Chamber of Commerce to begin a multifront lobbying campaign on behalf of business interests, including hiring top business lawyers to bring cases before the Supreme Court. لمواجهة النفوذ المتنامي بين القطاعين العام ورفع دعاوى المصلحه العامة للمواطن ، مثل الجماعات ، حث باول الغرفة التجارية لبدء حملة لكسب التأييد multifront باسم المصالح التجارية ، بما في توظيف كبار المحامين التجارية لرفع القضايا أمام المحكمه العليا. “The judiciary,” Powell predicted, “may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.” Two months after he wrote the memo, Powell was appointed by "السلطة القضاءيه ،" تنبأ باول ، "قد تكون اهم اداة من اجل التنمية الاجتماعية والاقتصادية والسياسية والتغيير." بعد شهرين من انه كتب نص المذكره ، وكان باول يعينهم Richard Nixon ريتشارد نيكسون to the Supreme Court. الى المحكمه العليا. And six years later, in 1977, after steadily expanding its lobbying efforts, the chamber established the National Chamber Litigation Center to file cases and briefs on behalf of business interests in federal and state courts. وبعد ست سنوات ، في 1977 ، بعد التوسع المطرد في دورته جهود الضغط ، انشأت قاعة الغرفة الوطنية التقاضي مركز رفع دعاوى وموجزات باسم مصالح تجارية في الدولة الاتحادية والمحاكم.

Today, the Chamber of Commerce is an imposing lobbying force. اليوم ، والغرفة التجارية هي التي تفرض كسب القوة. To fulfill its mission of serving “the unified interests of American business,” it collects membership dues from more than three million businesses and related organizations; last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the chamber spent more than $21 million lobbying the White House, Congress and regulatory agencies on legal matters. وفي تحقيق رسالتها المتمثلة في خدمة "الموحدة للمصالح التجارية الاميركية ،" فهي تقوم بجمع رسوم العضويه من اكثر من ثلاثة ملايين من الاعمال التجارية والمنظمات ذات الصلة ؛ العام الماضي ، وفقا لمركز لتستجيب السياسة ، وغرفة انفقوا اكثر من 21 مليون دولار لكسب التأييد البيضاء البيت الكونغرس والوكالات التنظيمية المتعلقة بالشؤون القانونية. But its battle against the forces of Naderism got off to a slow start. ولكن معركتها ضد قوات naderism ترجل الى بداية بطيءه. In 1983, when Robin Conrad arrived at the chamber, the Supreme Court was handing Nader and his allies significant victories. في 1983 ، عندما وصل روبن كونراد في الدائرة ، والمحكمه العليا ، وكان تسليم نادر وحلفائه انتصارات كبيرة. That year, for example, the court held that في تلك السنة ، على سبيل المثال ، قضت المحكمه بان President Reagan الرئيس ريغان ’s secretary of transportation, Andrew L. Lewis Jr., acted capriciously when he repealed a regulation, inspired by Nader’s advocacy, that required automakers to install passive restraints like air bags. بالمجلس ، وزير النقل ، اندرو لام لويس الابن ، وتصرفت نزويا عندما ألغت لائحة ، من وحي نادر في مجال الدعوة ، أن المطلوب لتركيب سيارات السلبي القيود مثل الوسائد الهواءيه. In 1986, the chamber supported a challenge to the وفي عام 1986 ، ايدت داءره تحديا ل Environmental Protection Agency وكالة حمايه البيئة ’s aerial surveillance of a Dow Chemical plant. 'دا الاستطلاع الجوي أ داو الكيمياءيه النباتية. The chamber’s side lost, 5-4. الغرفة الجانب فقدت ، 5-4.

But eventually, things began to change. ولكن في نهاية المطاف ، فان الامور بدأت تتغير. The chamber started winning cases in part by refining its strategy. الدائرة بدأت حالات الفوز في الجزء بتكرير استراتيجيتها. With Conrad’s help, the chamber’s Supreme Court litigation program began to offer practice moot-court arguments for lawyers scheduled to argue important cases. مع كونراد مساعدة ، وقاعة المحكمه العليا في التقاضي بدأ هذا البرنامج لتقديم الممارسه المسابقة - حجج المحكمه لمحامين من المقرر ان يجادل القضايا الهامة. The chamber also began hiring the most-respected Democratic and Republican Supreme Court advocates to persuade the court to hear more business cases. كما بدأت الغرفة توظيف اكثر محترمه الديمقراطي والجمهوري للمحكمة العليا دعاه الى اقناع المحكمه للاستماع الى المزيد من المبررات التجارية. Although many of the businesses that belong to the Chamber of Commerce have their own in-house lawyers, they would have the chamber file “friend of the court” briefs on their behalf. ورغم ان العديد من الشركات التي تنتمي الى الغرفة التجارية لديها - في دار المحامين ، ستتاح لهم الغرفة ملف "صديق للمحكمة" مذكرات نيابة عنهم. The chamber would decide which of the many cases brought to its attention were in the long-term strategic interest of American business and then hire the leading business lawyers to write supporting briefs or argue the case. الغرفة التي ستقرر من كثير من الحالات التي يوجه انتباهه إليها كانت في استراتيجية طويلة الأجل لصالح الاعمال التجارية فى امريكا وثم الاستئجار القيادي التجارية المحامين لكتابة ملخصات او يجادل دعم القضية.

Until the mid-’80s, there wasn’t an organized group of law firms that specialized in arguing business cases before the Supreme Court. وحتى منتصف '80s، لم يكن هناك مجموعة منظمة من أن قانون الشركات التجارية المتخصصه في المحاججه القضايا المعروضة على المحكمه العليا. But in 1985, Rex Lee, the solicitor general under Reagan, left the government to start a Supreme Court appellate practice at the firm Sidley Austin. ولكن في عام 1985 ، ريكس لي ، والمحامي العام في ظل ريغان ، وترك الحكومة لبدء المحكمه العليا الاستئناف الممارسه على صعيد الشركات sidley اوستن. Lee’s goal was to offer business clients the same level of expert representation before the Supreme Court that the solicitor general’s office provides to federal agencies. لي الهدف هو عرض الاعمال العملاء على نفس المستوى من الخبراء التمثيل امام المحكمه العليا ان المحامي العام يقدم المكتب الى الوكالات الاتحادية. Lee’s success prompted other law firms to hire former Supreme Court clerks and former members of the solicitor general’s office to start business practices. لى نجاح دفع اخرى للقانون الشركات لتوظيف المحكمه العليا السابق كتبه والاعضاء السابقين للمكتب المحامي العام لبدء الممارسات التجارية. The Chamber of Commerce, for its part, began to coordinate the strategy of these lawyers in the most important business cases. الغرفة التجارية ، من جانبها ، بدأت لتنسيق الاستراتيجيه من هؤلاء المحامين في اهم القضايا التجارية.

At times, the strategic calculations can be quite personal. وفي بعض الاحيان ، يمكن ان تكون الاستراتيجيه حسابات شخصية تماما. Because Supreme Court clerks have tremendous influence in making recommendations about what cases the court should hear, Conrad told me, having well-known former clerks involved in submitting a brief can be especially important. لأن المحكمه العليا قد كتبه بنفوذ هائل في تقديم توصيات حول ما الحالات ، وينبغي ان تستمع المحكمه ، وقال لي كونراد ، وبعد المعروفة سابقا كتبه تشارك في تقديم مختصر يمكن اهمية خاصة. “When Justice O’Connor was on the bench and we knew her vote was very important, we had a case where the opposition had her favorite clerk on the brief, so we retained her next-favorite clerk,” she said with a laugh. "العدالة اوكونور عندما كان على منصة القضاء وعرفناه بتصويتها المهم جدا ، وكانت لدينا حالة المعارضة كان لها المفضلة كاتب على موجزة ، ولذا فاننا احتفظ تقريرها المقبل - كاتب المفضلة ،" قالت مع ضحكة. “We won.” "لقد ربحنا".

In our conversation, Conrad was especially enthusiastic about Maureen Mahoney, a former clerk for Chief في حديثنا ، وخصوصا كونراد كان متحمسا مورين ماهوني ، وكاتب سابق للرئيس Justice Rehnquist العدالة rehnquist and one of the top Supreme Court litigators who coordinate strategy with the chamber. واحدة من اعلى محكمة العليا litigators استراتيجية منظمة الصحة العالمية تنسيق مع الغرفة. When Mahoney agreed in 2005 to represent an appeal by the disgraced accounting firm Arthur Andersen, which was convicted in 2002 of obstructing justice by shredding documents related to the audit of Enron, few people thought the Supreme Court would take the case. ماهوني عندما وافق في عام 2005 لتمثل نداء توجهه disgraced شركة آرثر أندرسون للمحاسبة ، الذي ادين في عام 2002 من عرقلة سير العدالة عن طريق التمزيق الوثائق ذات الصلة لمراجعة حسابات انرون ، وقليل من الناس يعتقد ان المحكمه العليا ستأخذ القضية. “The climate was very anti-Enron,” Mahoney told me, “and it was viewed as a doomed petition.” "المناخ جدا المضاده انرون ،" اخبرني ماهوني ، "وكان ينظر اليه باعتباره محكوما الالتماس".

Mahoney rehearsed her Supreme Court argument in a moot court sponsored by the chamber. ماهوني التمرن قالت المحكمه العليا حجة في المسابقة المحكمه التي ترعاها الغرفة. (“She was absolutely dazzling,” Conrad recalls.) On April 27, 2005, Mahoney stood calmly before the justices and delivered one of the best oral arguments I’ve ever seen at the Supreme Court. ( "كانت مطلقة الإبهار ،" كونراد تذكر.) نيسان (ابريل) 27 ، 2005 ، وقفت ماهوني بهدوء قبل قضاة وسلمت واحدة من افضل الحجج الشفويه قمت ينظر اليه من اي وقت مضى في المحكمه العليا. She argued that because Arthur Andersen’s accountants had followed a standard document-destruction procedure before receiving the government’s subpoena, they couldn’t be guilty of a crime; they weren’t aware what they were doing was criminal. وقالت انه بسبب ارثر اندرسون للمحاسبين اتبعت القياسيه الوثيقة - تدمير الاجراء قبل ان يحصل على الحكومة بالحضور ، وانهم لا يمكن ان مذنبا جريمه ؛ انهم لا يدركون ما يفعلونه هو الجناءيه. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed and reversed the conviction, 9-0. المحكمه العليا وافقوا بالاجماع وعكسه الاقتناع ، 9-0.

The Arthur Andersen case is a good example of how significantly the Supreme Court has changed its attitude about cases involving securities fraud — and business cases more generally — from the Warren to the Roberts era. آرثر اندرسن القضية هى مثال جيد على كيفية كبيرا المحكمه العليا قد تغير موقفها ازاء القضايا التي تنطوي على احتيال الاوراق -- والمبررات التجارية أعم -- من وارن الى عصر روبرتس. In a case in 1964, the court ruled that aggrieved investors and consumers could file private lawsuits to enforce the securities laws, even in cases in which Congress hadn’t explicitly created a right to sue. وفي حالة فى عام 1964 ، قضت المحكمه بأن المتضرر من المستثمرين ويمكن للمستهلكين ان الملف الخاص دعاوى لانفاذ قوانين الاوراق المالية ، وحتى في الحالات التي لم الكونغرس صراحة اوجد الحق في رفع دعوى. In the mid-1990s, however, Congress substantially cut back on these citizen suits, and the court today has shown little patience for them. وفي منتصف التسعينات ، ولكن الكونغرس خفضت بشكل كبير على هذه الدعاوى مواطن ، والمحكمه اليوم وقد اظهرت القليل من الصبر بالنسبة لهم. Mahoney says she sees her victory in the Arthur Andersen case as significant because it applied the same principle in criminal cases involving corporate wrongdoing that the court had already been recognizing in civil cases: namely, “refusing to create greater damage remedies or criminal penalties than Congress has explicitly specified.” She describes the case as “a very important win for business.” ماهوني تقول انها ترى في بلدها النصر ارثر اندرسون ان القضية هامة لأنها تطبق نفس المبدأ في القضايا الجناءيه التي تشمل الشركات التي ارتكبت الفعل غير المشروع ان المحكمه سبق الاعتراف في القضايا المدنيه : وهي "رفض لخلق مزيد من الضرر او العلاج عقوبات جناءيه من الكونغرس صراحة المحدد. "انها تصف حاله بانها" مهمة جدا للفوز الاعمال. "

This term, the Supreme Court has continued to cut back on consumer suits. هذا المصطلح ، واصلت المحكمه العليا الى تقليص يلائم المستهلك. In a ruling in January, the court refused to allow a shareholder suit against the suppliers to Charter Communications, one of the country’s largest cable companies. في حكمها الصادر في كانون الثاني / يناير ، رفضت المحكمه السماح لأحد المساهمين في دعواها ضد الموردين لميثاق الاتصالات ، واحدة من أكبر البلاد شركات الكابل. The suppliers were alleged to have “aided and abetted” Charter’s efforts to inflate its earnings, but the court held that Charter’s investors had to show that they had relied on the deceptive acts committed by the suppliers before the suit could proceed. الموردين يدعي انهم "بمساعدة وتحريض" ميثاق جهود لتضخيم ايراداتها ، ولكن المحكمه رأت ان الميثاق قد المستثمرين ليظهروا انهم قد اعتمدوا على الخادعه التي يرتكبها الموردين قبل امكان الشروع في الدعوى. A week later, the court invoked the same principle when it refused to hear an appeal in a case related to Enron, in which investors are trying to recover $40 billion from Wall Street banks that they claim aided and abetted Enron’s fraud. بعد ذلك بأسبوع واحد ، والمحكمه استندت الى نفس المبدأ عندما تستمع الى رفض الاستئناف في قضية تتعلق انرون ، الذي المستثمرين يحاولون استرداد 40 بليون دولار من بنوك وول ستريت التي يزعمون انهم بمساعدة وتحريض انرون للاحتيال. As a result, the shareholder suit against the banks may be dead. ونتيجة لذلك ، فإن حملة الاسهم دعواها ضد البنوك ربما يكون قد مات.

III. ثالثا.

In addition to litigating cases before the court, the Chamber of Commerce also lobbies Congress and the White House in an effort to change the composition of the court itself. وبالاضافة الى مقاضاة القضايا المعروضة على المحكمه ، والغرفة التجارية ايضا جماعات الضغط في الكونغرس والبيت الابيض في محاولة لتغيير تشكيل المحكمه نفسها. (Unlike many other government officials, the justices themselves are not, of course, subject to direct corporate lobbying.) The chamber’s efforts in this area were inspired by (على خلاف كثير من المسؤولين الحكوميين ، والقضاة انفسهم ليست ، بالطبع ، يخضع لكسب التأييد المباشر للشركات.) الغرفة الجهود في هذا المجال ، هي التي تلهم Robert Bork روبرت برك ’s thwarted nomination to the court in 1987. 'دا احبطت الترشيح الى المحكمه في 1987. Business groups were enthusiastic about Bork — not because of his conservative social views but because of his skepticism of vigorous antitrust enforcement. المجموعات التجارية كانت متحمسه برك -- ليس بسبب وضعه الاجتماعي المحافظ وجهات النظر ولكن بسبب وجهات نظره من الشكوك القويه انفاذ قوانين مكافحة الاحتكار. “In reaction to the Bork nomination, it struck us that we didn’t even have a process in place to be a player,” Conrad said. "في رد فعل على ترشيح برك ، أنها ضربت لنا ان فعلنا حتى لا يكون لها مكان في عملية ليكون لاعبا ،" قال كونراد.

So the chamber set up a formal process for endorsing candidates after their nominations. حتى الغرفة انشأت عملية رسمية لتأييد المرشحين بعد ترشيحاتها. The process was designed to be bipartisan; and the chamber has encouraged Democratic as well as Republican presidents to appoint justices. هذه العملية كانت ترمي الى ان الحزبين ؛ والغرفة وقد شجع الديمقراطي الجمهوري ، فضلا عن تعيين قضاة رؤساء. Nominees are evaluated solely through the prism of their views about business. يتم تقييم المرشحين فقط من خلال منظور وجهات نظرهم بشأن الاعمال التجارية. “We’re very surgical in our analysis,” Conrad said. "نحن مسرورون جدا الجراحيه في تحليلنا ،" قال كونراد.

After the election of بعد انتخاب Bill Clinton بيل كلينتون , for example, the chamber endorsed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who in addition to her pioneering achievements as the head of the women’s rights project at the ACLU had specialized, as a law professor, in the procedural rules in complex civil cases and was comfortable with the finer points of business litigation. ، وعلى سبيل المثال ، ايدت الدائرة روث بادر جينسبيرغ ، بالاضافة الى منظمة الصحة العالمية في بلدها رائدة الانجازات بصفته رئيسا للمشروع حقوق المراه في اتحاد الحريات المدنيه الامريكى قد المتخصصه ، باعتباره استاذ القانون ، في القواعد الاجراءيه المعقده في القضايا المدنيه وكانت مريحه مع أدق نقاط التجارية التقاضي. The chamber was especially enthusiastic about Clinton’s second nominee, Stephen Breyer, who made his name building a bipartisan consensus for airline deregulation as a special counsel on the judiciary committee; and who, as a Harvard Law professor, advocated an influential and moderate view on antitrust enforcement. الغرفة ولا سيما متحمسين كلينتون المرشح الثاني ، ستيفن breyer ، الذي جعل اسمه بناء توافق آراء الحزبين للطيران ورفع القيود بوصفها المستشار الخاص على اللجنة القضاءيه ؛ ومنظمة الصحة العالمية ، بوصفها هارفارد استاذ القانون ، ودعا مؤثر ورأى معتدل على انفاذ قوانين مكافحة الاحتكار.

During Breyer’s confirmation hearings his sharpest critic was Ralph Nader, who testified that his pro-business rulings were “extraordinarily one-sided.” Another critic, Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, said that the fact that the chamber was the first organization to endorse Breyer indicated that “large corporations are very pleased with this nomination” and “the fact that Ralph Nader is opposed to it indicated that the average American has a reason to have some concern.” The chamber’s imprimatur helped reassure Republicans about Breyer, and he was confirmed with a vote of 87 to 9. Breyer تأكيده خلال جلسات الاستماع له اشد الناقد هو رالف نادر ، والذين شهدوا ان بلدة المؤيدة التجارية قرارات كانت "غير عادي من جانب واحد." ناقد آخر ، السيناتور هوارد metzenbaum ولاية اوهايو ، وقال ان حقيقة ان الغرفة هي المنظمه الاولى اؤيد breyer اشارت الى ان "الشركات الكبيرة سعداء جدا مع هذا الترشيح" ، و "ان رالف نادر تعارض يشار الى ان متوسط الامريكى قد يكون سببا لبعض القلق." الغرفة تصريح ساعد طمأنة الجمهوريين عن breyer ، وقال انه اكد مع تصويت من 87 الى 9. “Frankly, we didn’t feel like we had anyone on the court since Justice Powell who truly understood business issues,” Conrad told me. "بصراحة ، نحن لا نشعر اننا مثل أي شخص كان على محكمة العدل منذ باول الذي يفهم حقا القضايا التجارية ،" كونراد اخبرني. “Justice Breyer came close to that.” "العدالة breyer اقتربت من ذلك".

The Breyer and Ginsburg nominations also came at a time when liberal as well as conservative judges and academics were gravitating in increasing numbers to an economic approach to the law, originally developed at the فان breyer جينسبيرغ الترشيحات وجاء ايضا في وقت ليبراليه وكذلك المحافظ والقضاة والاكاديميين وكانت اعداد متزايدة في الانجذاب إلى نهج اقتصادي الى القانون ، وضعت في الاصل في University of Chicago جامعة شيكاغو . The law-and-economics movement sought to evaluate the efficiency of legal rules based on their costs and benefits for society as a whole. - القانون والاقتصاد - حركة تسعى الى تقييم مدى كفاءه القواعد القانونية استنادا الى تكاليفها وفوائدها بالنسبة للمجتمع ككل. Although originally conservative in its orientation, the movement also attracted prominent moderate and liberal scholars and judges like Breyer, who before his nomination wrote two books on regulation, arguing that government health-and-safety spending is distorted by sensational media reports of disasters that affect relatively few citizens. ورغم ان محافظ اصلا في توجهاته ، كما اجتذبت الحركة البارزين المعتدله والليبراليه العلماء والقضاة مثل breyer ، الذي قبل ترشيحه كتب كتابين على التنظيم ، معتبرا ان الحكومة - الصحة والسلامة - الانفاق مشوهه مثيرة للمشاعر من قبل وسائل الاعلام تقارير الكوارث التى تؤثر على عدد قليل نسبيا من المواطنين.

Since joining the Supreme Court, Breyer has also been an intellectual leader in antitrust and patent disputes, which often pit business against business, rather than business against consumers. منذ انضمامه الى المحكمه العليا ، كما تم breyer فكرية رائدة في مجال مكافحة الاحتكار وبراءات الاختراع النزاعات ، والتى غالبا ما حفره ضد الاعمال التجارية ، بدلا من الاعمال ضد المستهلكين. In those cases, many liberal scholars sympathetic to economic analysis have applauded the court for favoring competition rather than existing competitors, innovation rather than particular innovators. في تلك الحالات ، فان العديد من العلماء الليبرالي متعاطفه التحليل الاقتصادي ، فقد بلغ المحكمه لصالح المنافسة بدلا من المنافسين الموجودين ، والابتكار بدلا من خاصة للمبدعين. “The court deserves credit for trying to rationalize a totally irrational patent system, benefiting smaller new competitors rather than existing big ones,” says "المحكمه الفضل في محاولة لترشيد تماما اللاعقلانيه نظام براءات الاختراع ، والاستفادة اصغر منافسين جدد بدلا من القائمة كبيرة لها ،" يقول Lawrence Lessig لورانس Lessig , an intellectual-property scholar at Stanford. ، والملكيه الفكريه باحث في جامعة ستانفورد.

Clinton’s nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer may have been welcomed by the chamber, but with the election of كلينتون ترشيحات جينسبيرغ وbreyer قد يكون موضع ترحيب من جانب الغرفة ، ولكن مع انتخاب George W. Bush جورج دبليو بوش , the chamber faced a dilemma. ، الغرفة التي تواجه مازقا. Ever since the Reagan administration, there had been a divide on the right wing of the court between pragmatic free-market conservatives, who tended to favor business interests, and ideological states-rights conservatives. ومنذ إدارة ريغان ، كان هناك انقسام على الجناح اليميني للمحكمة بين براغماتيه السوق الحرة المحافظون ، والذي يميل لصالح المصالح التجارية ، والايديولوجيه بين الولايات الانسان المحافظين. In some business cases, these two strands of conservatism diverged, leading the most staunch states-rights conservatives on the court, في بعض الحالات التجارية ، وهذه نوعان من المحافظة تباينت ، ويقود معظم الدول بقوة الانسان - المحافظون على المحكمه ، Antonin Scalia Antonin scalia and و Clarence Thomas كلارنس توماس , to rule against business interests. ، لقاعدة ضد المصالح التجارية. Scalia and Thomas were reluctant to second-guess large punitive-damage verdicts by state juries, for example, or to hold that federally regulated cigarette manufacturers could not be sued in state court. Scalia وتوماس يحجمون الثانية - تخمين الاضرار الكبيرة - قرارات عقابيه من جانب الدولة المحلفين ، على سبيل المثال ، أو لاجراء تنظيم الاتحادي ان صانعي السجائر لا يمكن مقاضاتها في محكمة الدولة. As a result, under Conrad’s leadership, the chamber began a vigorous campaign to urge the Bush administration to appoint pro-business conservatives. ونتيجة لذلك ، تحت زعامه كونراد ، الدائرة بدأت حملة نشطة لحث ادارة بوش على تعيين المناصره الاعمال المحافظين.

When it came time to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice عندما يأتي الوقت ليحل محل رئيس المحكمه العليا وليام rehnquist والعدالة Sandra Day O’Connor ساندرا اوكونور اليوم , the candidate most enthusiastically supported by states-rights conservatives, Judge Michael Luttig, had a record on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that some corporate interests feared might make him unpredictable in business cases. ، المرشح الاكثر أيدت بحماس من قبل الدول - المحافظون الانسان ، القاضي مايكل luttig ، قد سجل على محكمة الاستئناف للداءره الرابعة أن بعض مصالح الشركات يخشى ارغامه على التنبؤ في الاعمال الحالات. (“One of my constant refrains is that being conservative doesn’t necessarily mean being pro-business,” Conrad told me.) The chamber and other business groups enthusiastically supported John Roberts, who had been hired by the chamber to write briefs in two Supreme Court cases in 2001 and 2002. ( "احد زملائي المستمر هو ان يمتنع يجري المحافظ لا يعني بالضروره يجري الموالية الاعمال ،" كونراد اخبرني.) الغرفة التجارية وغيرها من الجماعات أيدت بحماس جون روبرتس ، الذي كان قد تم التعاقد عليها الغرفة لكتابه مذكرات في اثنين المحكمه العليا الحالات في عامي 2001 و 2002. At the time of Roberts’s nomination, Thomas Goldstein, a prominent Supreme Court litigator, described him as “the go-to lawyer for the business community,” adding “of all the candidates, he is the one they knew best.” When Roberts was nominated, business groups lobbied senators as part of the campaign for his confirmation. وفي وقت ترشيح روبرتس ، توماس غولدشتاين ، بارز مقيم الدعوى القضاءيه المحكمه العليا ، وصفه بأنه "الذهاب الى محام لمجتمع رجال الاعمال" ، واضاف "من بين جميع المرشحين ، وهو من عرفوها افضل." عندما وقد رشحت روبرتس ، وجماعات رجال الاعمال بالضغط على اعضاء مجلس الشيوخ كجزء من حملة لتأكيده.

The business community was also enthusiastic about مجتمع الاعمال ايضا متحمسين Samuel Alito صامويل alito , whose 15-year record as an appellate judge showed a consistent skepticism of claims against large corporations. ، الذي سجل 15 عاما كما استءنافيه القاضي اظهرت يتسق الشكوكيه الدعاوى المرفوعه ضد الشركات الكبيرة. Ted Frank of the American Enterprise Institute predicted at the time of the nomination that if Alito replaced O’Connor, he and Roberts would bring about a rise in business cases before the Supreme Court. تيد صريحة من مؤسسة المعهد الاميركي كان متوقعا عند ترشيح من انه اذا alito محل اوكونور ، وقال انه روبرتس من شأنه ان يحقق ارتفاعا في حالات الاعمال امام المحكمه العليا. Frank’s prediction was soon vindicated. صريح للتنبؤ وسرعان ما اثبتت صحه.

“There wasn’ta great deal of interest in classic business cases in the last few years of the Rehnquist Court,” Carter Phillips, a partner at Sidley Austin and a leading Supreme Court business advocate, told me. "Wasn'ta هناك قدرا كبيرا من الاهتمام في الاعمال الكلاسيكيه الحالات في السنوات القليلة الماضية من rehnquist المحكمه ،" كارتر فيليبس ، وهو شريك في sidley اوستن ورائد الدعوة الى المحكمه العليا التجارية ، واخبرني. In 2004, Judge Richard Posner, a founder of the law-and-economics movement, argued that the Rehnquist Court’s emphasis on headline-grabbing constitutional cases had politicized it, and called on the court to hear more business cases. في عام 2004 ، القاضي ريتشارد بوسنر ، وهو مؤسس الدولة - القانون - الاقتصاد والحركة ، يقال ان rehnquist المحكمه التركيز على عنوان بانتزاع الدستورية الحالات قد انها مسيسه ، ودعت المحكمه للاستماع الى المزيد من المبررات التجارية. The Roberts court has unambiguously answered the call. روبرتس المحكمه قد لبس لبى الدعوة. As Phillips told me, Roberts “is more interested in those issues and understands them better than his predecessor did.” وكما قال لي فيليبس ، روبرتس "هو اكثر المهتمين في هذه القضايا ومنها تفهم افضل مما فعل سلفه".

IV. رابعا.

Exactly how successful has the Chamber of Commerce been at the Supreme Court? بالضبط كيف نجحت الغرفة التجارية جرى في المحكمه العليا؟ Although the court is currently accepting less than 2 percent of the 10,000 petitions it receives each year, the Chamber of Commerce’s petitions between 2004 and 2007 were granted at a rate of 26 percent, according to Scotusblog. وبالرغم من ان المحكمه حاليا قبول أقل من 2 في المئة من 10000 الالتماسات التي تتلقاها كل سنة ، والغرفة التجارية للالتماسات بين عامي 2004 و 2007 منحت فيه بنسبة 26 في المئة ، وفقا لscotusblog. And persuading the Supreme Court to hear a case is more than half the battle: Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Georgetown who also represents environmental clients before the court, recently ran the numbers and found that the court reverses the lower court in 65 percent of the cases it agrees to hear; and when the petitioner is represented by the elite Supreme Court advocates routinely hired by the chamber, the success rate rises to 75 percent. واقناع المحكمه العليا تستمع الى القضية اكثر من نصف المعركه : ريتشارد لازاروس ، استاذ القانون في جورج تاون ، الذي يمثل ايضا البيءيه موكليهم امام المحكمه ، في الآونة الاخيرة ، وادارت الارقام تبين ان المحكمه عكس محكمة ادنى في 65 في المئة من ومن الحالات التي توافق على الاستماع ؛ وعندما ذكر صاحب الالتماس هو الذي يمثله النخبه المحكمه العليا دعاة روتيني استأجره الدائرة ، ونسبة النجاح تصل إلى 75 في المئة.

Faced with these daunting numbers, the progressive antagonists of big business are understandably feeling beleaguered and outgunned. وامام هذه الارقام الرهيبه ، التقدمي الخصوم من الشركات التجارية الكبرى هي المفهوم الشعور المحاصرين وoutgunned. “The fight before the court is generally not an even one,” said David Vladeck, who once worked for the Public Citizen Litigation Group and now teaches law at Georgetown. "الكفاح امام المحكمه هي عموما ليست واحدة حتى ،" قال ديفيد vladeck ، الذى يعمل مرة واحدة لمواطن العامة التقاضي والمجموعة الآن يعلم القانون في جورجتاون. “There’s us on one side, with a brief or two, and industry on the other side, with a well-coordinated campaign of 10 or 12 briefs, with each one written by a member of the elite Supreme Court bar that address an issue in enormous depth.” He added, ruefully, “You admire their handiwork, but it’s frustrating as hell to deal with.” "يوجد لنا على جانب واحد ، مع موجزة أو اثنين ، والصناعة وعلى الجانب الآخر ، مع منسقة تنسيقا جيدا فى الحملة من 10 او 12 موجزات ، مع كل واحدة كتبها أحد أعضاء النخبه المحكمه العليا ان معالجة بار المساله في عمق هاءله. "واضاف ، بشكل حزين ،" انت معجب على العمل اليدوي ، ولكنه محبط كما الجحيم للتعامل معها. "

To gauge the degree of the frustration, I recently paid a visit to Ralph Nader, a few weeks before he announced his most recent campaign for president of the United States. لقياس درجة من الاحباط ، انا مؤخرا بزياره الى رالف نادر ، قبل بضعة اسابيع من اعلن رضاه عن احدث حملة لرئيس الولايات المتحدة. It was a surprise to find that his office, the Center for Study of Responsive Law, shares an address in a grand building with the Carnegie Institution for Science. كانت مفاجاه ان نجد مكتبة ، ومركز لدراسة استجابة القانون ، وتشاطر عنوان في غراند بناء مع مؤسسة كارنيجي للعلوم. But the office itself, reassuringly, is buried on the ground floor, where Nader received me at a conference table surrounded by file cabinets stuffed with faded back issues of Mother Jones and The Nation. ولكن المكتب نفسه ، بشكل تطميني ، ودفن علي في الطابق الأرضي ، حيث تلقى نادر لي في مؤتمر الجدول محاطا خزائن حفظ الملفات المحشو مع تلاشي على بعد العودة من القضايا الام جونز والامة.

Nader was uncontrite about his 2000 run against نادر كان uncontrite عن بلده ضد البعيد 2000 Al Gore آل غور — which is often credited with helping George W. Bush win the presidency — and he insisted that because Clinton appointed justices like Breyer, Gore would have done the same. -- التي هي غالبا الفضل في المساعدة على جورج دبليو بوش يفوز رئاسة -- وأصر على ان كلينتون لأن مثل تعيين قضاة breyer ، غور من شأنه ان تفعل الشيء ذاته. “Breyer hasn’t been worse than I feared, because I had real concern when he was nominated,” Nader told me. "Breyer لم يكن أسوأ مما كنت تخشى ، لأنني قلق حقيقي عندما كان رشح ،" نادر اخبرني. He conceded that, like Breyer, Democratic justices appointed by President سلم جدلا بأن مثل breyer ، الديمقراطيه قضاة يعينهم الرئيس John Kerry جون كيرى would presumably have been better on civil rights and liberties than John Roberts and Samuel Alito. ومن المفترض كان من الأفضل على الحقوق والحريات المدنيه من جون روبرتس وصمويل alito. Nevertheless, he disparaged Breyer as a “deregulation quasi-ideologue” who was able to weave a “tapestry of illusion” in his arguments by dealing in abstractions. ومع ذلك ، فإنه مستسخف breyer بانها "تحرير شبه مذهبي" الذي تمكن من نسج أ "من نسيج الوهم" في حججه من خلال التعامل في التلخيص.

The main casualty of the 2000 run, Nader said, is that he is no longer collaborating with America’s trial lawyers. الاصابات الرئيسية للتشغيل 2000 ، وقال نادر ، هو انه لم يعد يتعاون مع أميركا في محاكمة المحامين. They would ordinarily be his natural allies in representing consumer interests, but they donated heavily to Gore’s campaign. وهم عادة له حلفاء طبيعيين في يمثلون مصالح المستهلكين ، لكنها تبرعت الشديدة لحملة غور. After 2000, the trial lawyers “have been vitriolic,” Nader explained. بعد عام 2000 ، فإن محاكمة المحامين "تم vitriolic ،" شرح نادر. He blames them for not using their money to help counteract the influence of the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups before the federal courts. وهو اللوم عليهم لعدم التصرف في أموالهم للمساعدة على مقاومه نفوذ غرفة التجارة وغيرها من المجموعات التجارية امام المحاكم الاتحادية. In part as a result of their stinginess, he said, his colleagues at Public Citizen are underfinanced and worn down. في جزء ونتيجة من البخل ، وقال ان زملاءه في الجمهور والمواطن من نقص البالية الى اسفل. “There were some lawyers who left Public Citizen because they got tired of losing,” he said. "كانت هناك بعض المحامين الذين تركوا الجمهور مواطن لانهم تعبوا من ان تفقد حصل ،" قال. “Everyone is desperately trying to hold on to whatever issues are left, and then they become demoralized and discouraged.” "الجميع يحاول يائسا على التمسك ايا كانت القضايا متروكه ، وعندئذ تصبح demoralized وثني".

Thirty years after the Chamber of Commerce founded its litigation center to counteract his influence, Nader all but conceded defeat in the battle for the Supreme Court. ثلاثون عاما بعد بالغرفه التجارية اسست مركز دورته التقاضي لمواجهة نفوذه ، ولكن نادر جميع تنازلات الهزيمة في المعركه من اجل المحكمه العليا. With the decline of economic populism in Congress, the weakening of trade unions and the rise of globalization, the political climate, he lamented, was passing him by. مع تراجع الاقتصادية الشعبية في الكونغرس ، وضعف النقابات العماليه وصعود العولمة ، والمناخ السياسي ، وأعرب عن أسفه ، وكان يمر عليه من قبل. “I recall a comment by Eugene Debs,” Nader said, looking at me intensely. "واتذكر تعليق يوجين debs ،" قال نادر ، اتطلع لي في الكثيفه. “He said: The American people live in a country where they can have almost anything they want. "وقال : ان الشعب الامريكي يعيش في بلد حيث يمكن ان يكون لها تقريبا اي شيء يريدون. And my regret is that it seems that they don’t want much of anything at all.” ويؤسفني هو انه يبدو انهم لا يريدون بكثير من أي شيء على الاطلاق. "

Nader chuckled quietly and shook his head. نادر chuckled بهدوء وهزت رأسه. “I say ditto.” "واقول كما سبق."

V. V.

If there is an anti-Nader — a crusading lawyer passionately devoted to the pro-business cause — it is Theodore Olson. اذا لم يكن هناك مضاد نادر -- محاربة المحامي بانفعال المكرسه لالمؤيدة للقضية تجارية -- ومن تيودور اولسون. One of the most influential Supreme Court advocates and a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, Olson is best known for his winning argument before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore in 2000. واحدة من الاكثر نفوذا المحكمه العليا والمحامين والمحامي العام الاسبق في عهد الرئيس جورج دبليو بوش ، اولسن هو معروف افضل لبلده كسب الحجه امام المحكمه العليا فى بوش ضد غور في 2000. But Olson has devoted most of his energies in private practice to changing the legal and political climate for American business. ولكن اولسن وقد كرس معظم صاحب الطاقات في عيادات خاصة لتغيير المناخ السياسي والقانوني لقطاع الاعمال الاميركي. According to his peers in the elite Supreme Court bar, he more than anyone else is responsible for transforming the approach to one of the most important legal concerns of the American business community: punitive damages awarded to the victims of corporate negligence. ووفقا لأقرانه في المحكمه العليا النخبه بار ، وهو اكثر من اي شخص آخر هو المسؤول عن تحويل النهج الى واحدة من أهم شواغل القانونية للمجتمع الاعمال الامريكى : منح تعويضات تاديبيه لضحايا الاهمال الشركات.

Punitive damages — money awarded by civil juries on top of any awarded for actual harm that victims have suffered — are designed to penalize especially egregious acts of corporate misconduct resulting from malice or greed, and to deter similar wrongdoing in the future. تعويضات تاديبيه -- الاموال التي تمنحها هيئات المحلفين المدني على رأس اي ضرر فعلى لمنح الضحايا التي عانت -- مصممة على معاقبة الاعمال الفظيعه وخصوصا من الشركات الناجمة عن سوء السلوك او سوء قصد الجشع ، والى ردع مماثلة ارتكبت الفعل غير المشروع في المستقبل. In the 19th century, courts generally demanded a clear assignment of fault in cases where victims sued for injuries caused by malfunctioning products. وفي القرن التاسع عشر ، وطالب المحاكم عموما واضح احالة الخطأ في الحالات التي يكون فيها الضحايا دعوى عن الاضرار التي تسببها المنتجات المعطوبه. It was hard for plaintiffs to recover in personal-injury cases unless the corporation was obviously at fault. واضاف انه يصعب للالمدعون لاسترداد في حالات الاصابة الشخصيه - الا اذا كان من الواضح ان الشركة في الخطأ. But in the 20th century, in liability cases involving a rapidly expanding class of potentially dangerous products like cars, drugs and medical devices, courts increasingly applied a standard of “strict liability,” which held that manufacturers should pay whether or not they were directly at fault. ولكن في القرن العشرين ، والمسؤولية في الحالات التي تنطوي على التوسع السريع في الطبقة تنطوي على اخطار منتجات مثل السيارات والادوية والاجهزه الطبية ، والمحاكم تطبق بشكل متزايد في مستوى "المسؤولية الصارمه" التي عقدت المصنعين ينبغي ان تدفع سواء أكانت أم لم تكن مباشرة في خطأ.

The animating idea was that manufacturers were in the best position to prevent accidents by improving their products with better design and testing. موحيه فان الفكره هي ان المصنعين كانت في افضل موقع لمنع وقوع الحوادث من خلال تحسين منتجاتها مع أفضل تصميم واختبار. They and their insurance companies (rather than society as a whole) would shoulder the costs of accidents, thus giving them an incentive to make their products safer. لا يكونون هم وشركات التأمين (وليس المجتمع ككل) وسوف تتحمل تكاليف الحوادث ، وبالتالي اعطائهم حافزا لجعل منتجاتها اكثر امانا. Encouraged by Ralph Nader’s book, “Unsafe at Any Speed,” published in 1965, courts began to see car accidents as predictable events that better car design could have prevented. In 1968, for example, a federal court held that car manufacturers could be sued for failing to make cars safe enough for drivers to survive crashes, even if the driver was at fault for the crash.

A series of well-publicized awards in the 1980s and ’90s culminated in the largest punitive damage award in American history the $5 billion levied against Exxon after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. This was hardly typical: the median punitive award actually fell to $50,000 in 2001 from $63,000 in 1992. This was hardly typical: the median punitive award actually fell to $50000 in 2001 from $63000 in 1992. Nevertheless, critics like Olson claimed that multimillion-dollar punitive-damage verdicts were threatening the health of the economy. They resolved to fight back on several fronts. In his first Supreme Court argument, in 1986, Olson set out the broad contours of his argument: for most of English and American history, private litigants were entitled to be compensated for whatever damages they suffered, including pain and suffering, but any public wrongs like the failure of American business to make cars safer by adopting air bags should be addressed by legislation or regulation, not by the courts. In his first Supreme Court argument, in 1986, Olson set out the broad contours of his argument: for most of English and American history, private litigants were entitled to be compensated for whatever damages they suffered, including pain and suffering, but any public wrongs like the failure of American business to make cars safer by adopting air bags should be addressed by legislation or regulation, not by the courts.

Olson decided that his clients deserved not just a lawyer who could argue a case but a lawyer who could change the political culture. “You had to attack it in a broad-scale way in the legislatures, in the arena of public opinion and in the courts,” he told me recently. “I felt the business community had to approach this in a holistic way.” He set out, in lectures and op-ed pieces, to publicize especially egregious examples. The poster child for punitive-damage abuse, widely derided in TV and radio ads paid for by the business community, was a New Mexico grandmother who, in 1994, was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages when she scalded herself with hot McDonald’s coffee. The poster child for punitive-damage abuse, widely derided in TV and radio ads paid for by the business community, was a New Mexico grandmother who, in 1994, was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages when she scalded herself with hot McDonald’s coffee . Consumer advocates countered that she had originally asked for $20,000 for medical expenses, which McDonald’s refused to pay, and the award appeared to have the effect of persuading McDonald’s to serve its coffee at a safer temperature. Consumer advocates countered that she had originally asked for $20000 for medical expenses, which McDonald’s refused to pay, and the award appeared to have the effect of persuading McDonald’s to serve its coffee at a safer temperature. Nonetheless, the campaign to vilify plaintiffs’ lawyers has been effective enough that the American Association of Trial Lawyers recently changed its name to the fuzzier American Association for Justice.

The business community made other inroads against punitive damages. Corporations financed campaigns against pro-punitive-damage state judges who had been elected with the assistance of large contributions from plaintiffs’ lawyers. The business community also helped persuade more than 30 states to either impose caps on punitive-damage awards or direct substantial portions of the awards to be paid into special state funds. In 1996, it helped persuade the Republican Congress, led by Newt Gingrich , to pass legislation that would cap punitive-damage awards in product-liability cases in every state court in the country. But in 1996, President Clinton, with what must have been perverse pleasure, vetoed the bill on the grounds that it violated principles of federalism and states rights to which conservatives claimed to be devoted.

Thwarted by Clinton, and unable to persuade Congress to override the veto, opponents of punitive damages turned their attention back to the Supreme Court, looking for a victory they were unable to win in the political arena. Here, they were remarkably successful. As late as 1991, the court had refused to impose limits on a large punitive-damage award. But in a case in 1996, the court held for the first time that punitive-damage awards had to be proportional to the actual damage incurred by the plaintiff. The case involved a man who said he was deceived by BMW when it sold him a supposedly “new” car that was, in fact, used and had received a $300 touch-up job. The court, in a 5-4 opinion, overturned a $2 million punitive-damage award as “grossly excessive.” In 2003, the court clarified what it meant: a single-digit ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages was likely to be acceptable. The court, in a 5-4 opinion, overturned a $2 million punitive-damage award as “grossly excessive.” In 2003, the court clarified what it meant: a single-digit ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages was likely to be acceptable .

Last year, the business community watched with anticipation as Roberts and Alito revealed their views about punitive damages. The case involved the estate of a heavy smoker who sued Philip Morris for deceitfully distributing a “poisonous and addictive substance.” A jury had awarded the estate $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages — a ratio of about 100 to 1. The case involved the estate of a heavy smoker who sued Philip Morris for deceitfully distributing a “poisonous and addictive substance.” A jury had awarded the estate $821000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages — a ratio of about 100 to 1. In a 5-4 opinion written by Breyer, the court held that it was unconstitutional for a jury to use punitive damages to punish a company for its conduct toward similarly affected individuals who are not party to the lawsuit.

This spring, the court will decide the Exxon Valdez punitive-damage case, which many consider the culmination of the business community’s decades-long campaign against punitive damages. In 1989, the Exxon Valdez tanker, whose captain had a history of alcoholism, ran into a reef and punctured the hull; 11 million gallons of oil leaked onto the coastline of Prince William Sound. A jury handed down a $5 billion punitive-damage award.

After the verdict, Exxon began providing money for academic research to support its claim that the award for damages was excessive. It financed some of the country’s most prominent scholars on both sides of the political spectrum, including the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago. (Sunstein says he accepted only travel grants, not research support, from Exxon; and Kahneman stresses that the financing had no influence on the substance of his work.) In a 2002 book, “Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide,” Sunstein studied hundreds of mock-jury deliberations and concluded that jurors are unpredictable and often irrational in punitive-damage cases. (Sunstein says he accepted only travel grants, not research support, from Exxon; and Kahneman stresses that the financing had no influence on the substance of his work.) In a 2002 book, “Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide,” Sunstein studied hundreds of mock-jury deliberations and concluded that jurors are unpredictable and often irrational in punitive-damage cases. Jury deliberations, he found, increase the unpredictability, as well as the dollar amount of the final awards. Sunstein concluded that a system of civil fines determined by experts, rather than punitive damages determined by juries, might be more sensible. When Exxon appealed the $5 billion verdict in 2006, it was reduced by an appellate court to $2.5 billion. The reduced verdict is once again being challenged as excessive.

Walter Dellinger, the lawyer now arguing Exxon’s case before the Supreme Court, is no Republican activist. Like Sunstein, he is one of the most respected Democratic constitutional scholars, as well as a former acting solicitor general for President Clinton. Last month, in his argument before the court, Dellinger argued that because Exxon has already paid $3.4 billion in fines, cleanup costs and compensation connected with the Exxon Valdez spill, and because it didn’t act out of malice or greed in failing to monitor the alcoholic captain, additional punitive damages would serve no “public purpose.” Last month, in his argument before the court, Dellinger argued that because Exxon has already paid $3.4 billion in fines, cleanup costs and compensation connected with the Exxon Valdez spill, and because it didn’t act out of malice or greed in failing to monitor the alcoholic captain, additional punitive damages would serve no “public purpose.”

During the argument, Breyer noted that the $2.5 billion punitive damage award represents a less than 10-to-1 ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages, which is in the single-digit range that the Supreme Court has considered acceptable in the past. But Breyer also seemed concerned at other points that punitive-damage awards have not been routine in maritime cases like this one, and that the award might create “a new world for the shipping industry.” Alito, who owns Exxon Mobil stock, did not participate, and because a tie would affirm the $2.5 billion punitive-damage award, the plaintiffs who are opposing Exxon need only four votes to prevail. But Breyer also seemed concerned at other points that punitive-damage awards have not been routine in maritime cases like this one, and that the award might create “a new world for the shipping industry.” Alito, who owns Exxon Mobil stock, did not participate, and because a tie would affirm the $2.5 billion punitive-damage award, the plaintiffs who are opposing Exxon need only four votes to prevail. But whether Dellinger gets five votes, a significant triumph is already behind him: he persuaded the court to take the case in the first place.

VI.

Ted Olson and the Chamber of Commerce aren’t only trying to persuade the Supreme Court to cut back on large punitive-damage awards; they’re also arguing that consumers injured by dangerous or defective medical devices and drugs in some cases shouldn’t be able to file product-liability suits at all. Ted Olson and the Chamber of Commerce aren’t only trying to persuade the Supreme Court to cut back on large punitive-damage awards; they’re also arguing that consumers injured by dangerous or defective medical devices and drugs in some cases shouldn’t be able to file product-liability suits at all. Because there is no national product-liability law that allows federal suits for personal injuries, consumers who are injured by, say, defective heart valves or artificial hips have to sue in state courts under state tort law. By asking the Supreme Court to prevent injured consumers from suing in state court, the business community, supported by the Bush administration, is trying to ensure that these consumers often have no legal remedy for their injuries. And the Supreme Court has been increasingly sympathetic to the business community’s arguments.

In a Supreme Court case Olson argued in December, he stood before the justices and argued that the manufacturers of defective medical devices — like heart valves, breast implants and defibrillators — should be immune from personal-liability suits because the federal Food and Drug Administration ادارة الاغذيه والعقاقير had approved the devices before they were marketed and the manufacturers had complied with all federal requirements. The case involved Charles Riegel, who had an angioplasty in 1996 during which the catheter used to dilate his coronary artery burst. Riegel, who needed advanced life support and emergency bypass surgery, eventually sued the manufacturer of the catheter, Medtronic. The company is colloquially referred to in the business community as “the pre-emption company” because of its practice of arguing that the Food and Drug Administration’s “premarket approval” of its products pre-empts product-liability suits in state courts.

The lawyer representing Riegel’s estate before the Supreme Court, Allison Zieve of Public Citizen, countered that Congress never intended to ban state product-liability suits when Senator Edward Kennedy sponsored a bill regulating medical devices in 1976. (Kennedy himself filed a brief in the case noting that he indeed intended no such thing.) “Lawyers think this is a close issue, but any time I talk to a nonlawyer about it, they’re shocked,” Zieve told me after the argument. (Kennedy himself filed a brief in the case noting that he indeed intended no such thing.) “Lawyers think this is a close issue, but any time I talk to a nonlawyer about it, they’re shocked,” Zieve told me after the argument. “People think: of course, if somebody makes a defective product you can sue.”

It’s one thing to argue that the federal government’s “premarket approval” of food, drugs and medical devices should pre-empt clearly inconsistent state laws and regulations. After all, if states imposed safety requirements that conflicted with the federal standard, the resulting regulatory confusion would make a national (and global) market impossible. But Olson’s claim that federal regulation of medical devices and drugs should also pre-empt product-liability suits under state tort law is one of the more creative and far-reaching legal arguments of the business groups that litigate before the Supreme Court.

This type of argument arose out of the tobacco litigation of the 1980s and ’90s, which culminated in a $206 billion settlement paid by the top tobacco companies to a consortium of 46 state attorneys general in exchange for dropping tort suits against the companies. The tobacco litigation began modestly: in 1983, Rose Cipollone, a New Jersey woman dying of lung cancer, sued several of the country’s largest tobacco companies for their failure to give adequate warnings about the dangers of smoking. After spending tens of millions of dollars fighting the verdict, the companies decided to take their defense to the next level. They argued that because the federal government required cigarette companies to have warning labels, tobacco companies couldn’t be subject to tort suits in state courts. Jury verdicts, they argued, are no less a form of regulation than laws explicitly adopted by state legislatures.

In a decision in 1992, the Supreme Court endorsed part of the companies’ argument. The decision unleashed a torrent of similar “pre-emption” claims by the manufacturers of dangerous drugs, defective medical devices and cars without air bags. And after the election of President Bush in 2000, the business community’s crusade was aggressively supported by the White House. At the same time that the White House was scaling back on federal health-and-safety enforcement, it insisted that consumers should not be able to sue federally regulated industries in state court. Bush appointed as the general counsel of the Food and Drug Administration a former drug- and tobacco-company lawyer named Daniel Troy. With Troy’s support, the FDA reversed its position, held for 25 years, and argued for the first time that its premarket approval of medical devices should prevent injured consumers from bringing product-liability suits in state court.

After her Supreme Court argument in the Medtronic case, Zieve told me she wasn’t sure what to expect. Until the arrival of Chief Justice Roberts, groups like Public Citizen had found that they had a better chance of winning pre-emption cases before the Supreme Court than in the lower courts. But during the first two years of the Roberts Court, the justices had decided two pre-emption cases in favor of the corporate defendants.

The trend has continued. On Feb. 21, the Supreme Court handed Zieve a crushing defeat: an 8-1 opinion immunizing the makers of defective medical devices from product-liability suits. The lone dissent was written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who objected that Congress could not have intended such a “radical curtailment” of state personal-injury suits when it regulated medical devices in 1976. Ginsburg, who is devoted to liberal judicial restraint, has consistently opposed efforts to second-guess punitive-damage awards or expand federal pre-emption. I called Zieve soon after the Supreme Court issued its opinion, and she sounded shocked. “It’s really unfathomable to me,” she said. “I wasn’t sure that this was a business-friendly court, but now I’m finding it harder not to view it that way.” Zieve said that, as a result of the decision, “I think the industry will keep unsafe devices on the market longer and be slower to improve products.” “I wasn’t sure that this was a business-friendly court, but now I’m finding it harder not to view it that way.” Zieve said that, as a result of the decision, “I think the industry will keep unsafe devices on the market longer and be slower to improve products.”

In the eyes of advocates like Zieve and Public Citizen, the public is now caught in a Catch-22: at the very moment that agencies like the FDA are being strongly reproved by critics — including the agency’s own internal science board — for being unwilling or unable to protect public health, the court is making it harder for people to receive compensation for the injuries that result. In the eyes of advocates like Zieve and Public Citizen, the public is now caught in a Catch-22: at the very moment that agencies like the FDA are being strongly reproved by critics — including the agency’s own internal science board — for being unwilling or unable to protect public health, the court is making it harder for people to receive compensation for the injuries that result. On rare occasions, the Roberts Court has held that the Bush administration’s deregulatory efforts circumvent the will of Congress — like the 5-4 decision last year holding that the Environmental Protection Agency acted capriciously when it adopted a rule that said it had no legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. On rare occasions, the Roberts Court has held that the Bush administration’s deregulatory efforts circumvent the will of Congress — like the 5-4 decision last year holding that the Environmental Protection Agency acted capriciously when it adopted a rule that said it had no legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. But by and large, the Supreme Court defers to agencies that refuse to regulate public health and safety. “The industry has a lot of money, and they can routinely hire the biggest names in the biggest firms, while we’re doing it on our own,” Zieve told me. “We don’t charge anything — we’re free. It didn’t cost $250,000 to get us to write the brief.” It didn’t cost $250000 to get us to write the brief.”

VII.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to reconsider its pro-business outlook anytime soon. Nevertheless, there are several currents in American political life that run counter to the court, even if they may not be strong enough, or suitably directed, to reverse it. There are, for example, economic populists in both political parties — John Edwards Democrats and Mike Huckabee Republicans, to cite just two types — who express concern about growing economic inequality and corporate corruption, and blame unchecked corporate power for America’s escalating economic problems. These populists tend to be from the working and middle classes rather than the professional classes, and their numbers may be growing. In recent Pew surveys, 65 percent of Americans agreed that corporations make excessive profits — the highest number in 20 years. Moreover, about half the country now asserts that America is divided on economic lines into two groups — the “haves” and “have nots” — up from only 26 percent two decades ago. And the number of Americans who view themselves as “have nots” has doubled to 34 percent today from 17 percent in 1988. Responding to pressures from this demographic, a Democratic Congress — bolstered by states-rights conservatives — might well try to pass legislation to counteract the court’s recent decisions barring product-liability suits for defective medical devices.

What about the executive branch? It seems unlikely that John McCain , if he were elected president, would push back against the court: he has already pledged to appoint “judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito,” rather than justices more devoted to states rights, like Scalia and Thomas. As for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both have sounded increasingly populist notes in an effort to attract union and blue-collar supporters, ratcheting up their attacks on corporate wealth and power, singling out the drug, oil and health-insurance industries and promising to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. and Hillary Clinton, both have sounded increasingly populist notes in an effort to attract union and blue-collar supporters, ratcheting up their attacks on corporate wealth and power, singling out the drug, oil and health-insurance industries and promising to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. But despite their rhetoric, it is not clear that either candidate would actually appoint justices any more populist than Bill Clinton’s nominees. “I would be stunned to find an anti-business appointee from either of them,” Cass Sunstein, who is a constitutional adviser to Obama, told me. “There’s not a strong interest on the part of Obama or Clinton in demonizing business, and you wouldn’t expect to see that in their Supreme Court nominees.”

Still, the possibility does exist. If the economy continues to decline and blue-collar voters end up being crucial in the election, a Democratic president might appoint an economic populist to the Supreme Court as a kind of payback. Earlier this month, on the campaign trail in Ohio, Obama mentioned Earl Warren, who served as governor of California before becoming chief justice, as a model of the kind of justice he hoped to appoint. “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through,” Obama said. He praised Warren for understanding that segregation was wrong because of the stigma it attached to blacks, rather than because of the precise nature of its sociological impact. Appointing a former politician to the court would almost certainly introduce a more populist element: the Supreme Court that in 1954 decided Brown v. Board of Education included, in addition to a former governor, three former senators, a former Securities and Exchange Commission member and two former attorneys general. Appointing a former politician to the court would almost certainly introduce a more populist element: the Supreme Court that in 1954 decided Brown v. Board of Education included, in addition to a former governor, three former senators, a former Securities and Exchange Commission member and two former attorneys general. (By contrast, the Roberts court is composed of nine former judges.)

Whatever happens in November, Robin Conrad says the Chamber of Commerce is prepared to lobby as hard as ever for the appointment of pro-business justices. “If we do have a Democrat president, and that president has opportunities to nominate to the court,” she said in our meeting as I glanced at her Hillary Clinton action figure, “we want to be able to express ourselves and work with that president.” Regardless of how many justices retire in the next presidential term, Conrad is confident that, having helped to transform the Supreme Court in less than 30 years, she and her colleagues can assure American business of a sympathetic hearing for decades to come. “If we do have a Democrat president, and that president has opportunities to nominate to the court,” she said in our meeting as I glanced at her Hillary Clinton action figure, “we want to be able to express ourselves and work with that president .” Regardless of how many justices retire in the next presidential term, Conrad is confident that, having helped to transform the Supreme Court in less than 30 years, she and her colleagues can assure American business of a sympathetic hearing for decades to come.

When I told Conrad that Ralph Nader told me that lawyers were leaving Public Citizen because they were tired of losing, she achieved a look of earnest concern. “I hope if they feel they’ve lost,” she said, “they lost for a good reason — not because they’ve been overpowered or muscled by the big, bad business community, but they’ve lost because reason won.”

Conrad looked at me squarely, and then added, “I guess if Ralph Nader wants to say we did him in” — she paused to weigh her words — “so be it.”

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, is a frequent contributor to the magazine. He is the author, most recently, of “The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America.”

Comment on 'How Corporations Took Over The Supreme Court' :

RSS TrackBack URL

Related News: