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 Das Hauptquartier der US Chamber of Commerce, befindet sich gegenüber vom Lafayette Park in Washington, ist ein Kalkstein-Struktur, die fast genauso aussieht wie die majestätischen Supreme Court Supreme Court . The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Die Ähnlichkeit ist kein Zufall: Beide Gebäude wurden von den Architekten, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. In letzter Zeit jedoch die Affinitäten zwischen dem Gericht und der Kammer, eine reich finanziert Business-Advocacy-Organisation, zu sein scheinen mehr als nur architektonische. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. Der Oberste Gerichtshof Begriff, der im Juni vergangenen Jahres beendet wurde, von allen Maßnahmen, die außergewöhnlich gut für die amerikanische Wirtschaft. 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. Die Kammer legte Briefs Rechtsstreitigkeiten Zentrum in 15 Fällen und seiner Seite und gewann 13 von ihnen - der höchste Prozentsatz der Siege in der Mitte der 30-jährigen Geschichte. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests. Die laufende Amtszeit, die in diesem Sommer endet, ist auch gut für die Gestaltung von geschäftlichen Interessen.

I visited the chamber recently to talk with Robin Conrad, who heads the litigation effort, about her recent triumphs. Ich besuchte vor kurzem die Kammer-to-talk mit Robin Conrad, der Leiter der Rechtsstreitigkeiten Mühe, über ihre jüngsten Erfolge. 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. Conrad, eine ansprechende, Soft-Frau gesprochen, lebt mit ihrer Familie auf einer Pferdefarm in Maryland, wo sie reitet mit einem Fuchs-Jagd-Club namens Howard County-Iron Bridge Hounds. Her office, playfully adorned by action figures of women like Xena the Warrior Princess and Ihr Büro, spielerisch verziert von Action-Figuren von Frauen wie Xena the Warrior Princess und Hillary Rodham Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton , has one of the most impressive views in Washington. , Ist eine der beeindruckendsten Ausblicke in Washington. “You can see the White House through the trees,” she said as we peered through a window overlooking the park. "Man kann sehen, das Weiße Haus durch die Bäume", sagte sie, wie wir spähte durch ein Fenster mit Blick auf den Park hat. “In the old days, you could actually see people bathing in the fountain. "In den alten Tagen, kann man eigentlich sehen die Menschen das Baden in den Brunnen. Homeless people.” Wohnungslose Menschen. "

Conrad was in an understandably cheerful mood. Conrad war verständlicherweise in einer fröhlichen Stimmung. Though the current Supreme Court has a well-earned reputation for divisiveness, it has been surprisingly united in cases affecting business interests. Obwohl die derzeitige Supreme Court hat einen wohlverdienten Ruf für die Uneinigkeit, war es überraschend vereint in den Fällen, die Interessen der Wirtschaft. Of the 30 business cases last term, 22 were decided unanimously, or with only one or two dissenting votes. Von den 30 Fällen business letzten Semester, 22 wurden einstimmig beschlossen, oder mit nur ein oder zwei abweichende Stimmen. 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. Conrad sagte, sie sei besonders froh darüber, dass einige der wichtigsten Entscheidungen wurden von liberalen Richter, spreche für die liberalen und konservativen Kollegen gleichermaßen. In opinions last term, In Stellungnahmen des vergangenen Semester, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ruth Bader Ginsburg , 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 , Stephen Breyer und David Souter jeder ging aus seinem oder ihrem Weg zur Frage der Verwendung von Klagen gegen Unternehmen Fehlverhalten - eine Strategie Liebeserklärung von progressiven Gruppen wie Public Citizen Public Citizen 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.’ ” Denunziert, aber routinemäßig von Konservativen als "Regelung von Streitigkeiten." Conrad getaumelt off einige ihrer Lieblings-Momente: "Justice Ginsburg darüber gesprochen, wie der" privaten Wertpapier-Betrug Aktionen, wenn nicht ausreichend enthalten, die benutzt werden können, missbräuchlich. "Justice Breyer hatte eine wundervolle Zitat dazu, wie Kongress wurde versucht, "Herausfiltern unmeritorious Wertpapiere Klagen." Justice Souter darüber gesprochen, wie die Gefahr von Rechtsstreitigkeiten 'Push-Kosten-bewusste Angeklagten zu regeln. "

Examples like these point to an ideological sea change on the Supreme Court. Beispiele wie diese zeigen, um einen ideologischen Wandel auf den Obersten Gerichtshof. 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. Eine Generation vor, progressive und Verbraucherverbänden Petition an das Gericht könne sich auf günstige Mehrheit schriftliche Stellungnahmen von Richter, die sich ein großes Geschäft mit Skepsis - oder sogar völlige Vorurteil. 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.” Eine wirtschaftliche populistischen wie William O. Douglas, der ehemaligen "New Deal" Kreuzfahrer, die auf dem Hof diente von 1939 bis 1975, unapologetically einmal angekündigt, dass er "bereit, biegen das Gesetz zu Gunsten der Umwelt und gegen die Konzerne."

Today, however, there are no economic populists on the court, even on the liberal wing. Heute gibt es jedoch keine wirtschaftliche Populisten an das Gericht, auch auf den liberalen Flügel. And ever since Und schon seit John Roberts John Roberts was appointed chief justice in 2005, the court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Ernannt wurde Chef des Rechts im Jahr 2005, hat das Gericht schien nur mehr empfänglich für Unternehmen betrifft. Forty percent of the cases the court heard last term involved business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years. Vierzig Prozent der Fälle das Gericht gehört letzten Semester an geschäftlichen Interessen, die von rund 30 Prozent in den letzten Jahren. 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. Während die Rehnquist Court gehört weniger als ein Kartell-Entscheidung ein Jahr im Durchschnitt zwischen 1988 und 2003, die Roberts Gerichtshof hat gehört, sieben in den ersten beiden Begriffe - und alle von ihnen waren entschieden zu Gunsten des Corporate Angeklagten.

Business cases at the Supreme Court typically receive less attention than cases concerning issues like affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. Business Fällen der Oberste Gerichtshof in der Regel weniger Aufmerksamkeit als die Fälle im Zusammenhang mit Fragen wie "affirmative action", die Abtreibung oder die Todesstrafe. The disputes tend to be harder to follow: the legal arguments are more technical, the underlying stories less emotional. Die Streitigkeiten sind in der Regel schwieriger zu folgen: die rechtlichen Argumente sind mehr technische, die zugrunde liegenden Geschichten weniger emotional. 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. 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. Es handelt sich um Milliarden von Dollar, haben erhebliche Konsequenzen für die Wirtschaft und haben einen größeren Einfluss auf das tägliche Leben der Menschen, die oft als symbolische Kämpfe der Kultur Kriege. 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. In der aktuellen Supreme Court Begriff, der Richter haben bereits blockiert eine Verbindlichkeit gegen Medtronic, der Hersteller einer Herz-Katheter, und lehnte eine Art Anzug Aktionär, der eine Forderung gegen Enron. 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. In den kommenden Monaten wird das Gericht entscheiden, ob die Verringerung der größte strafenden Schaden-Auszeichnung in der amerikanischen Geschichte, die durch die Exxon-Valdez-Ölpest in 1989.

What should we make of the Supreme Court’s transformation? Was soll man von den Obersten Gerichtshof der Transformation? 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. Im Laufe seiner Geschichte hat das Gericht hat die Tendenz zur Abgabe von Stellungnahmen, in den Gebieten von Redefreiheit für die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter, oder zu konsolidieren, die einen sozialen Konsens. 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. Mit ihrer Pro-Business-Rechtsprechung, die Richter erfassen kann eine aufstrebende Geist der Vereinbarung zwischen liberalen und konservativen Eliten über den Wert der freien Märkte. 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. Unter den Profi-Klassen, viele Demokraten und Republikaner, und zwar unabhängig von anderen Meinungsverschiedenheiten, hat sich ein relativ laissez-faire, technokratische Vision der Wirtschaft und sind misstrauisch gegenüber übermäßige Regulierung und reflexive Anstrengungen zu verunglimpfen ein großes Geschäft. Judges, lawyers and law professors (such as myself) drilled in cost-benefit analysis over the past three decades, are no exception. Richter, Rechtsanwälte und Professoren (wie mich) gebohrt und Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse in den vergangenen drei Jahrzehnten, sind keine Ausnahme. 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. Es sollte so wenig verwunderlich, dass John Roberts und Stephen Breyer, beide studierte von denen der ökonomischen Analyse des Rechts an der Harvard-Universität, haben ähnliche Instinkte und Business Cases.

This elite consensus, however, is not necessarily shared by the country as a whole. Diese Elite Konsens ist jedoch nicht unbedingt geteilt durch das Land als Ganzes. If anything, America may be entering something of a populist moment. Wenn überhaupt, kann die Eingabe Amerika so etwas wie ein populistischer Moment. 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. Wenn Sie kombinieren die Gruppen der Amerikaner in den letzten Pew-Umfrage, die auf einige schlanke Stamm der Wirt-schafts-populismus - von Unzufriedenen und konservative Demokraten zu den traditionellen Liberalen zu Sozial-und Big-Regierung Konservativen - mindestens zwei Drittel aller Wähler wohl fühlen Sympathie für die Regierung Eingriffe in die Wirtschaft. Could it be, then, that the court is reflecting an elite consensus while contravening the sentiments of most Americans? Könnte es sein, dass das Gericht sich eine Elite, während Konsens gegen die Gefühle der meisten Amerikaner? Only history will ultimately make this clear. Nur die Geschichte wird letztlich deutlich machen. One thing, however, is certain already: the transformation of the court was no accident. Eines aber ist sicher bereits: die Transformation des Gerichts war kein Zufall. 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. Es stellt den Höhepunkt einer sorgfältig geplant, die hinter den Kulissen Kampagne über mehrere Jahrzehnte zu ändern, nicht nur die Gerichte, sondern auch die politische Kultur des Landes.

II. II.

The origins of the business community’s campaign to transform the Supreme Court can be traced back precisely to Aug. 23, 1971. Die Ursprünge der Wirtschaft, den Kampf um den Supreme Court kann genau zurückverfolgen August 23, 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. Das war der Tag, an dem Lewis F. Powell Jr., ein Corporate Rechtsanwalt in Richmond, Va., schrieb ein Memo an seinen Freund Eugene B. Snydor, so der Leiter des Bildungs-Ausschusses der US Chamber of Commerce. 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, In dem Memo, Powell äußerte seine Besorgnis darüber, dass das amerikanische Wirtschaftssystem sei "unter breiter Angriff." Er identifiziert mehrere Aggressoren: Die Neue Linke, die liberale Medien, rebellischen Studenten an den Hochschulen, Universitäten und, ganz wichtig, Ralph Nader Ralph Nader . 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.

Powell claimed that this attack on the economic system was “quite new in the history of America.” Ever since 1937, when President Powell behauptete, dass dieser Angriff auf das ökonomische System war "ganz Neues in der Geschichte der USA. 1937, als Präsident Franklin D. Roosevelt Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to pack a conservative Supreme Court with more progressive justices, the court had largely deferred to federal and state economic regulations. Bedroht zu packen eine konservative Oberste Gerichtshof mit mehr progressive Richter, hatte das Gericht weitgehend latenten Bundes-und Landesbehörden zu wirtschaftlichen Verordnungen. 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. Und durch die 60er Jahre, der Supreme Court unter Chief Justice Earl Warren hatte sich für eine Form der wirtschaftlichen Populismus, die oft zugunsten der Interessen der kleinen Unternehmen über ein großes Geschäft, auch zu Lasten der Verbraucher. 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.” Aber was Powell sah in der Arbeit von Nader und andere extreme war insgesamt mehr: eine radikale Kampagne, die "breit angelegte und konsequent verfolgt werden."

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. Um den wachsenden Einfluss von öffentlichem Interesse Rechtsstreitigkeiten Gruppen wie Public Citizen, Powell forderte die Industrie-und Handelskammer zu beginnen multifront Lobbykampagne im Namen der geschäftlichen Interessen, einschließlich der Einstellung von Top-Business-Anwälte zu bringen Fällen vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof. “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 "Die Justiz", Powell vorausgesagt, "könnte das wichtigste Instrument für die soziale, wirtschaftliche und politische Veränderungen." Zwei Monate, nachdem er schrieb das Memo, Powell ernannt wurde durch Richard Nixon Richard Nixon to the Supreme Court. An den Obersten Gerichtshof. 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. Und sechs Jahre später, im Jahre 1977, nach der stetig erweitert seine Lobbying-Bemühungen, die Kammer wurde der Nationale Kammer Prozessführung Center in Datei Fällen und Merkblätter im Namen der geschäftlichen Interessen in der Bundes-und staatlichen Gerichten.

Today, the Chamber of Commerce is an imposing lobbying force. Heute ist die Industrie-und Handelskammer ist eine imposante Lobbying Kraft. 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. Zur Erfüllung ihres Auftrags zu dienen "das vereinte Interessen der amerikanischen Wirtschaft," es sammelt Mitgliedsbeitrag von mehr als drei Millionen Unternehmen und Organisationen, im letzten Jahr, nach dem Center for Responsive Politics, die Kammer für mehr als $ 21 Millionen Lobbyarbeit der White House, Kongress-und Regulierungsbehörden über rechtliche Fragen. But its battle against the forces of Naderism got off to a slow start. Aber seinen Kampf gegen die Mächte des Naderism hatte einen langsamen Start. In 1983, when Robin Conrad arrived at the chamber, the Supreme Court was handing Nader and his allies significant victories. Im Jahre 1983, als Robin Conrad kam in der Kammer, der Oberste Gerichtshof war der Abgabe Nader und seine Verbündeten bedeutende Siege. That year, for example, the court held that In diesem Jahr, zum Beispiel, hat das Gericht entschieden, dass President Reagan Präsident Reagan ’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. 'S Sekretär des Transportes, Andrew L. Lewis Jr., kapriziös gehandelt hat, als er eine Verordnung aufgehoben, inspiriert von Nader's Advocacy, die erforderlich Automobilhersteller zu installieren passive Beschränkungen wie Airbags. In 1986, the chamber supported a challenge to the In 1986, der Kammer unterstützt eine Herausforderung für die Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency ’s aerial surveillance of a Dow Chemical plant. 'S Luftüberwachung der Dow Chemical Anlage. The chamber’s side lost, 5-4. Die Kammer der Seite verloren, 5-4.

But eventually, things began to change. Aber schließlich, die Dinge zu ändern begann. The chamber started winning cases in part by refining its strategy. Die Kammer begann gewinnen Fällen teilweise durch Verfeinerung ihrer Strategie. 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. Mit Conrad's helfen, die Kammer des Obersten Gerichtshofs Rechtsstreitigkeiten Programm begann der Praxis zu bieten Moot-Gericht Argumente für Rechtsanwälte geplant wichtigen Fällen zu argumentieren. The chamber also began hiring the most-respected Democratic and Republican Supreme Court advocates to persuade the court to hear more business cases. Die Kammer begann auch die Einstellung der meisten respektierten demokratischen und republikanischen Supreme Court befürwortet, um das Gericht zu hören, mehr Geschäft Fälle. 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. Obwohl viele der Unternehmen, gehören zu den Industrie-und Handelskammer haben ihre eigenen Inhouse-Juristen, sie hätte die Kammer Datei "Freund des Gerichts" Briefs in ihrem Namen. 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. Die Kammer würde entscheiden, welche der vielen Klagen auf seine Aufmerksamkeit wurden in der langfristigen strategischen Interesse der amerikanischen Wirtschaft und dann evtl zu den führenden Business-Anwälte zu schreiben Unterstützung Briefs oder argumentieren, der Fall ist.

Until the mid-’80s, there wasn’t an organized group of law firms that specialized in arguing business cases before the Supreme Court. Bis Mitte der 80er Jahre gab es nicht eine organisierte Gruppe von spezialisierten Kanzleien, die in der Begründung Geschäft Fälle vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof. 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. Aber im Jahr 1985, Rex Lee, der Anwalt allgemeinen unter Reagan, links die Regierung auf, einen Obersten Gerichtshof Berufungsgericht Praxis in der Kanzlei Sidley Austin. 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. Lee's Ziel war es, bieten ihren Business-Kunden den gleichen Grad an Experten Vertretung vor dem Supreme Court, dass die allgemeine Solicitor's office bietet Bundesstellen. 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. Lee's Erfolg, der andere Kanzleien zu mieten ehemaligen Obersten Gerichtshof Sachbearbeiter und ehemalige Mitglieder des allgemeinen Solicitor's office to start Geschäftspraktiken. The Chamber of Commerce, for its part, began to coordinate the strategy of these lawyers in the most important business cases. Die Chamber of Commerce, für ihren Teil, begann für die Koordinierung der Strategie der Anwälte in den wichtigsten Business Cases.

At times, the strategic calculations can be quite personal. In Zeiten, die strategischen Berechnungen können ganz persönlich. 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. Da Supreme Court Sachbearbeiter haben enormen Einfluss auf die Abgabe von Empfehlungen über welchen Fällen sollte das Gericht hören, Conrad hat mir gesagt, daß bekannten ehemaligen Angestellten, die in der Vorlage eine kurze kann dann besonders wichtig sein. “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. "Wenn die Justiz O'Connor war auf der Bank, und wir wussten, ihre Stimme war sehr wichtig, wir hatten einen Fall, in dem die Opposition hatte ihre Lieblings-Schreiber auf die kurze, so dass wir beibehalten ihr Lieblings-Schreiber der nächsten", sagte sie mit einem Lachen. “We won.” "Wir haben gewonnen."

In our conversation, Conrad was especially enthusiastic about Maureen Mahoney, a former clerk for Chief In unserem Gespräch, Conrad war besonders begeistert von Maureen Mahoney, ehemaliger Chief Kauffrau /-mann für Justice Rehnquist Justice Rehnquist and one of the top Supreme Court litigators who coordinate strategy with the chamber. Und einer der Top-Supreme Court litigators koordinieren, die Strategie mit der Kammer. 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. Wenn Mahoney vereinbart, im Jahr 2005 auf eine Beschwerde von der blamierte Arthur Andersen Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, wurde verurteilt, die 2002 in der Justiz behindert Zerkleinerung von Dokumenten im Zusammenhang mit der Prüfung von Enron, wenige Menschen gedacht, der Oberste Gerichtshof in Anspruch nehmen würde der Fall ist. “The climate was very anti-Enron,” Mahoney told me, “and it was viewed as a doomed petition.” "Das Klima war sehr Anti-Enron," Mahoney erzählte mir, "und es war als Petition verurteilt."

Mahoney rehearsed her Supreme Court argument in a moot court sponsored by the chamber. Mahoney geprobt ihr Argument Oberste Gerichtshof in einem Streit Gericht gesponsert von der Kammer. (“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. ( "Sie war absolut blendend", erinnert sich Conrad.) Am 27. April 2005, Mahoney stand ruhig vor dem Richter und lieferte eines der besten mündlichen Argumenten, die ich je gesehen habe an den Obersten Gerichtshof. 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. Sie argumentierte, dass aufgrund der Wirtschaftsprüfer Arthur Andersen hatte sich ein Standard-Dokument Zerstörung Verfahren vor Erhalt der Regierung, Vorladungen, könnten sie nicht eines Verbrechens für schuldig befunden, sie waren nicht bewusst, was sie taten, war kriminell. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed and reversed the conviction, 9-0. Der Oberste Gerichtshof einstimmig vereinbart, und umgekehrt die Überzeugung, 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. Die Arthur Andersen Fall ist ein gutes Beispiel dafür, wie stark der Oberste Gerichtshof hat sich ihre Haltung zu Fällen von Betrug Wertpapiere - und Business Fällen generell - von der Warren auf die Roberts-Ära. 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. In einem Fall im Jahr 1964, hat das Gericht entschieden, dass geschädigte Anleger und Verbraucher könnten Datei private Klagen zur Durchsetzung der Gesetze Wertpapiere, auch in Fällen, in denen Kongress hatte nicht ausdrücklich ein Recht zu verklagen. In the mid-1990s, however, Congress substantially cut back on these citizen suits, and the court today has shown little patience for them. In der Mitte der 1990er Jahre, aber wesentlich gekürzt Kongress über diese Klagen der Bürger, und das Gericht hat heute gezeigt, wenig Geduld für sie. 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.” Mahoney, sagt sie sieht ihr Sieg in der Arthur Andersen im Fall von Bedeutung, weil sie die gleichen Prinzip in Strafsachen mit Corporate Fehlverhalten, dass das Gericht bereits zu erkennen in zivilrechtlichen Fällen: nämlich, "sich weigern, eine größere Schäden Heilmittel oder strafrechtliche Sanktionen als Kongress - Hat ausdrücklich angegeben ist. "Sie beschreibt den Fall als" ein sehr wichtiger Sieg für die Wirtschaft. "

This term, the Supreme Court has continued to cut back on consumer suits. Dieser Begriff, der Oberste Gerichtshof hat weiter gekürzt auf die Verbraucherpreise passt. 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. In einem Urteil im Januar, das Gericht geweigert, damit ein Aktionär gegen den Lieferanten zu Charter Communications, einer der größten Kabel-Unternehmen. 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. Die Lieferanten wurden angeblich haben "geförderte und angestiftete" Charta der Bemühungen um aufblasen das Ergebnis, sondern das Gericht fest, dass die Charta Investoren hatten, zu zeigen, dass sie sich auf die betrügerische Handlungen, die von den Lieferanten vor dem Anzug gehen könnte. 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. Eine Woche später, das Gericht berufen dem gleichen Prinzip, wenn es zu hören, lehnte eine Beschwerde in einem Fall im Zusammenhang mit Enron, in denen Investoren versuchen, wieder $ 40 Milliarden von Wall Street Banken, dass sie behaupten, rechnergestützte und angestiftete Enron-Betrug. As a result, the shareholder suit against the banks may be dead. Als Folge des Aktionärs gegen die Banken möglicherweise gestorben.

III. III.

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. Zusätzlich zu den Fällen Streitigkeiten vor Gericht, der Handelskammer auch Lobbys Kongress und das Weiße Haus in einer Bemühung zu ändern, die Zusammensetzung des Gerichts. (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 (Im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen staatlichen Beamten, die Richter selbst sind natürlich nicht Gegenstand einer direkten Corporate Lobbying.) Die Kammer der Anstrengungen in diesem Bereich wurden in Anlehnung an Robert Bork Robert Bork ’s thwarted nomination to the court in 1987. 'S vereitelte Nominierung für das Gericht in 1987. Business groups were enthusiastic about Bork — not because of his conservative social views but because of his skepticism of vigorous antitrust enforcement. Business Gruppen waren begeistert Bork - und nicht wegen seiner konservativen Ansichten sozialen, sondern weil seine Skepsis der Kartellbehörden energische Durchsetzung. “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. "In Reaktion auf die Nominierung Bork, war es uns, dass wir nicht einmal einen Platz in der ein Spieler zu sein", sagte Conrad.

So the chamber set up a formal process for endorsing candidates after their nominations. Die Kammer eingerichtet einen formalen Prozess für die Kandidaten nach ihrer Billigung Nominierungen. The process was designed to be bipartisan; and the chamber has encouraged Democratic as well as Republican presidents to appoint justices. Der Prozess wurde so konzipiert, dass zwei Parteien, und die Kammer hat die Demokratische als auch die Republikanische Präsidenten Richter zu ernennen. Nominees are evaluated solely through the prism of their views about business. Nominees werden ausschließlich durch das Prisma der ihre Ansichten über Geschäfte. “We’re very surgical in our analysis,” Conrad said. "Wir sind sehr chirurgische in unserer Analyse", sagte Conrad.

After the election of Nach der Wahl von Bill Clinton Bill Clinton , 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. , Zum Beispiel, die Kammer billigte Ruth Bader Ginsburg, die zusätzlich zu ihrer Pionierleistungen wie der Leiter des Projekts die Rechte der Frauen in der ACLU spezialisiert hatten, als Jura-Professor in der Verfahrensregeln in komplexen Fällen Zivil-und was comfortable Mit den Feinheiten des Business Rechtsstreitigkeiten. 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. Die Kammer war besonders begeistert von Clintons zweite Kandidat, Stephen Breyer, der seinen Namen den Aufbau einer parteiübergreifenden Konsens für die Fluggesellschaft Deregulierung als spezieller Berater Ausschuss auf die Justiz, und die, als der Harvard Law Professor, plädierte für eine einflussreiche und moderaten Ausblick Kartellbehörden auf Durchsetzung.

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. Während der Anhörungen Breyer Bestätigung seiner schärfsten Kritiker war Ralph Nader, die bezeugen, dass seine Pro-Business-Entscheidungen seien "außerordentlich einseitig." Ein anderer Kritiker, Howard Metzenbaum Senator von Ohio, gesagt, dass die Tatsache, dass die Kammer war die erste Organisation, Billigen Breyer wies darauf hin, dass "große Konzerne sind sehr zufrieden mit dieser Nominierung" und "die Tatsache, dass Ralph Nader ist dagegen darauf hin, dass der durchschnittliche Amerikaner hat einen Grund zu haben einige Bedenken." Die Kammer ist Imprimatur geholfen zu beruhigen Republikaner Breyer, Und er wurde mit einer Zustimmung von 87 auf 9. “Frankly, we didn’t feel like we had anyone on the court since Justice Powell who truly understood business issues,” Conrad told me. "Offen gesagt, wir haben keine Lust hatten wir Personen, die auf das Gericht seit Justiz Powell, die wirklich verstanden Business-Themen", sagte Conrad mich. “Justice Breyer came close to that.” "Justice Breyer kam nah an."

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 Die Breyer und auch Ginsburg Nominierungen kamen zu einer Zeit, als liberale als auch konservative Richter und Akademiker waren gravitierend in immer mehr zu einem wirtschaftlichen Ansatz für die Rechtsvorschriften, die ursprünglich an der University of Chicago University of Chicago . The law-and-economics movement sought to evaluate the efficiency of legal rules based on their costs and benefits for society as a whole. Das Gesetz-und Wirtschaftswissenschaften-Bewegung versucht zu bewerten, die Effizienz der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen auf der Grundlage ihrer Kosten und Nutzen für die Gesellschaft als Ganzes. 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. Obwohl ursprünglich in seiner konservativen Ausrichtung, die Bewegung zog auch prominente gemäßigte und liberale Gelehrte und Richter wie Breyer, die vor seiner Nominierung schrieb zwei Bücher über die Regulierung und vertritt die Ansicht, dass die Regierung Gesundheits-und Sicherheits-Ausgaben ist verzerrt durch die sensationelle Medien Berichte über Katastrophen, die sich auf Relativ wenige Bürger.

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. Seit seinem Eintritt bei der Oberste Gerichtshof, Breyer wurde auch eine geistige Führer in Kartell-und Patent-Streitigkeiten, die oft pit Unternehmen gegen Unternehmen, sondern gegen die Verbraucher über die Wirtschaft. 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. In jenen Fällen, viele liberale Gelehrte Verständnis für ökonomische Analyse haben applaudiert das Gericht für den Wettbewerb zu begünstigen, anstatt bestehende Wettbewerber, die Innovation eher als besondere Innovatoren. “The court deserves credit for trying to rationalize a totally irrational patent system, benefiting smaller new competitors rather than existing big ones,” says "Das Gericht Verdienst zu rationalisieren ein völlig irrational-Patent-System, profitieren kleinere neue Wettbewerber, anstatt bestehende große", sagt Lawrence Lessig Lawrence Lessig , an intellectual-property scholar at Stanford. , Eine geistige Eigentum-Stipendiat an der Stanford.

Clinton’s nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer may have been welcomed by the chamber, but with the election of Clinton's Nominierungen der Ginsburg und Breyer Mai wurden von der Kammer begrüßt, aber mit der Wahl von George W. Bush George W. Bush , the chamber faced a dilemma. , Die Kammer einem Dilemma. 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. In some business cases, these two strands of conservatism diverged, leading the most staunch states-rights conservatives on the court, In einigen Fällen Unternehmen, diese beiden Stränge der Konservatismus auseinander, was die meisten Staaten standhafter-Rechte Konservativen für das Gericht, Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia and Und Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas , to rule against business interests. , Die gegen die Regel geschäftlichen Interessen. 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 und Thomas nur ungern zu erratende zweite große strafenden Schaden-Urteile durch staatliche Jurys, zum Beispiel, oder zu halten, dass eidgenössisch geregelten Zigarettenhersteller konnte nicht verklagt werden, in staatlichen Gericht. As a result, under Conrad’s leadership, the chamber began a vigorous campaign to urge the Bush administration to appoint pro-business conservatives. Als Ergebnis, unter der Leitung von Conrad, die Kammer begann eine energische Kampagne, um die Bush-Administration zu ernennen-Business-Konservative.

When it came time to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Wenn es darum ging, Zeit zu ersetzen, Chief Justice William Rehnquist und Justiz Sandra Day O’Connor Sandra Day O'Connor , 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. , Der Kandidat enthusiastisch unterstützt von den meisten Staaten-Rechte Konservativen, Richter Michael Luttig, hatte einen Rekord auf dem Court of Appeals für die Vierte Circuit, dass einige Unternehmen befürchten, könnten Interessen machen ihn unberechenbar und Business Cases. (“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. ( "Einer meiner konstant Refrains ist, dass die konservative, bedeutet nicht unbedingt, dass Pro-Geschäft", sagte Conrad mir.) Die Kammer und andere Geschäfts-Gruppen enthusiastisch unterstützt John Roberts, die worden, die von der Kammer zu schreiben Briefs in zwei Supreme Court Fällen in den Jahren 2001 und 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. Zum Zeitpunkt der Nominierung Roberts, Thomas Goldstein, ein prominenter Supreme Court forensisch tätig, beschrieb ihn als "go-to Anwalt für die Wirtschaft," Hinzufügen "von allen Kandidaten, er ist der sie am besten kannte." Wann Roberts wurde nominiert, Business-Lobbying-Gruppen Senatoren als Teil der Kampagne für seine Bestätigung.

The business community was also enthusiastic about Die Wirtschaft war auch begeistert Samuel Alito Samuel Alito , whose 15-year record as an appellate judge showed a consistent skepticism of claims against large corporations. , Deren 15-Jahr-Datensatz als Berufungsgericht Richter zeigte eine konsequente Skepsis von Ansprüchen gegen Großkonzerne. 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. Ted Frank von der American Enterprise Institute vorhergesagt zum Zeitpunkt der Nominierung, dass, wenn Alito ersetzt O'Connor, Roberts und er würde zu einem Anstieg des Geschäfts Fällen vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof. Frank’s prediction was soon vindicated. Frank's Vorhersage wurde bald bestätigt.

“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. "Es war kein großes Interesse an der klassischen Geschäft Fälle, in den letzten Jahren der Rehnquist Court," Carter Phillips, einen Partner zu Sidley Austin und einer der führenden Business-Anwalt Supreme Court, hat mir gesagt. 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. In 2004, Richter Richard Posner, einer der Gründer des Rechts-und Wirtschaftswissenschaften-Bewegung, argumentierte, dass die Rehnquist Court's Schwerpunkt auf schlagzeilenträchtige verfassungsrechtlichen Fällen hatte er politisiert, und appellierte an das Gericht zu hören, mehr Geschäft Fälle. The Roberts court has unambiguously answered the call. Roberts Das Gericht hat eindeutig beantwortet den Anruf. As Phillips told me, Roberts “is more interested in those issues and understands them better than his predecessor did.” Wie Phillips erzählte mir, Roberts "ist mehr Interesse an diesen Themen und versteht sie besser als sein Vorgänger tat."

IV. IV.

Exactly how successful has the Chamber of Commerce been at the Supreme Court? Genau wie erfolgreich ist der Industrie-und Handelskammer wurde am Obersten Gerichtshof? 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. Obwohl das Gericht ist derzeit weniger als 2 Prozent der 10000 Petitionen, die sie erhält jedes Jahr, der Industrie-und Handelskammer-Petitionen zwischen 2004 und 2007 gewährt wurden zu einem Satz von 26 Prozent, nach Scotusblog. 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. Und jetzt, den Obersten Gerichtshof zu hören, ist ein Fall mehr als die halbe Miete: Richard Lazarus, ein Jura-Professor an der Georgetown, die auch Umwelt-Kunden vor dem Gericht, die vor kurzem lief die Zahlen überprüft und festgestellt, dass das Gericht kehrt Gericht in den unteren 65 Prozent der Den Fällen stimmt sie zu hören, und wenn der Petent wird vertreten durch den Supreme Court Elite Befürworter routinemäßig, die von der Kammer, die Erfolgsquote steigt auf 75 Prozent.

Faced with these daunting numbers, the progressive antagonists of big business are understandably feeling beleaguered and outgunned. Angesichts dieser gewaltigen Zahlen, die schrittweise Antagonisten des Großkapitals sind verständlicherweise Gefühl bedrängten und outgunned. “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. "Der Kampf vor dem Gericht ist in der Regel nicht selbst ein," sagte David Vladeck, die einst für die Public Citizen Litigation Group und lehrt heute Rechtswissenschaften an der Georgetown. “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.” "Es ist uns auf der einen Seite, mit einer kurzen oder zwei, und in der Industrie auf der anderen Seite, mit einem gut koordinierten Kampagne der 10 oder 12 Mandate, mit jeweils von einem Mitglied der Elite-Supreme Court Bar diese Adresse ein Frage enorme Tiefe. "Er fügte hinzu, reuig," Sie bewundern ihre Handarbeit, aber es ist frustrierend, wie die Hölle zu tun. "

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. Zur Beurteilung der Grad der Frustration, ich vor kurzem einen Besuch Ralph Nader, ein paar Wochen angekündigt, bevor er seine jüngste Kampagne für den Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. 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. Es war eine Überraschung zu sehen, daß sein Büro, das Center for Study of Responsive Law, Aktien eine Adresse in einem großen Gebäude mit der Carnegie Institution für die Wissenschaft. 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. Aber das Amt selbst, beruhigend, begraben liegt im Erdgeschoss, wo Nader erhielt mich an einem Konferenztisch, umgeben von Datei Schränke gefüllt mit verblassten zurück Fragen der Mutter Jones und The Nation.

Nader was uncontrite about his 2000 run against Nader war uncontrite über seine 2000 laufen gegen Al Gore Al Gore — 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. -- Gutgeschrieben, die oft mit Hilfe von George W. Bush die Präsidentschaft gewinnen - und er bestand darauf, dass, weil Clinton ernannte Richter wie Breyer, Gore hätte das auch getan. “Breyer hasn’t been worse than I feared, because I had real concern when he was nominated,” Nader told me. "Breyer wurde nicht schlimmer, als ich befürchtet, weil ich Sorge hatte, als er nominiert war", erzählte mir Nader. He conceded that, like Breyer, Democratic justices appointed by President Er räumte ein, dass, wie Breyer, Demokratische Richter ernannt von Präsident John Kerry John Kerry would presumably have been better on civil rights and liberties than John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Wäre vermutlich besser gewesen über die bürgerlichen Rechte und Freiheiten als John Roberts und Samuel 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. Dennoch, er verunglimpfte Breyer als "Quasi-Ideologe Deregulierung", war in der Lage zu weben ein "Wandteppich der Illusion" in seiner Argumente durch die sich in Abstraktionen.

The main casualty of the 2000 run, Nader said, is that he is no longer collaborating with America’s trial lawyers. Die wichtigsten Unfall der 2000 laufen, sagte Nader, ist, dass er sich nicht mehr in Zusammenarbeit mit America's Strafverteidiger. They would ordinarily be his natural allies in representing consumer interests, but they donated heavily to Gore’s campaign. Sie würden unter normalen Umständen seine natürlichen Verbündeten in der die Interessen der Verbraucher vertreten, aber sie gespendet stark zu Gore-Kampagne. After 2000, the trial lawyers “have been vitriolic,” Nader explained. Nach 2000, der Strafverteidiger "wurden hasserfüllten", erklärte Nader. 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. Er macht sie für die Nicht-Nutzung ihr Geld zu helfen, gegen den Einfluss der Industrie-und Handelskammer und anderen Business-Gruppen vor den Bundesgerichten. In part as a result of their stinginess, he said, his colleagues at Public Citizen are underfinanced and worn down. Zum Teil als Folge der Geiz, sagte er, seine Kollegen bei Public Citizen sind unterfinanziert und getragen. “There were some lawyers who left Public Citizen because they got tired of losing,” he said. "Es gab einige Anwälte, die die Public Citizen, weil sie müde wurde zu verlieren", sagte er. “Everyone is desperately trying to hold on to whatever issues are left, and then they become demoralized and discouraged.” "Jeder Mensch ist verzweifelt versucht, an welchen Themen sind links, und dann werden sie demoralisiert und entmutigt."

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. Dreißig Jahre nach der Handelskammer gegründete Zentrum seiner Prozessführung gegen seinen Einfluss, zugegeben, aber alle Nader Niederlage in der Schlacht für den Obersten Gerichtshof. 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. Mit dem Niedergang des wirtschaftlichen Populismus im Kongress, die Schwächung der Gewerkschaften und der Anstieg der Globalisierung, das politische Klima, er beklagte, war ihm vorbei. “I recall a comment by Eugene Debs,” Nader said, looking at me intensely. "Ich erinnere mich an ein Kommentar von Eugene Debs", sagte Nader, um mich intensiv. “He said: The American people live in a country where they can have almost anything they want. "Er sagte: Das amerikanische Volk in einem Land leben, wo sie fast alles haben sie wollen. And my regret is that it seems that they don’t want much of anything at all.” Und mein Bedauern ist, dass es scheint, dass sie nicht wollen, dass alles zu viel. "

Nader chuckled quietly and shook his head. Nader lachte leise und schüttelte den Kopf. “I say ditto.” "Ich sage dito."

V. V.

If there is an anti-Nader — a crusading lawyer passionately devoted to the pro-business cause — it is Theodore Olson. Wenn es eine Anti-Nader - ein Gesicht Anwalt leidenschaftlich widmet sich der Pro-Business Sache - es ist Theodore Olson. 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. Einer der einflussreichsten Obersten Gerichtshof befürwortet und ein ehemaliger Anwalt allgemeinen unter Präsident George W. Bush, Olson ist am besten bekannt für seine siegreichen Argument vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof gegen Bush und Gore im Jahr 2000. But Olson has devoted most of his energies in private practice to changing the legal and political climate for American business. Doch Olson hat den größten Teil seiner Energien in der privaten Praxis eine Änderung der rechtlichen und politischen Rahmenbedingungen für amerikanische Unternehmen. 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. Nach seinen Kollegen in der Elite-Supreme Court Bar, er mehr als jeder andere ist verantwortlich für die Umgestaltung der Ansatz zu einer der wichtigsten rechtlichen Belange der amerikanischen Wirtschaft: Schadensersatz mit Strafwirkung, die an die Opfer der Corporate Fahrlässigkeit.

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. Schadensersatz mit Strafwirkung - Geld von Zivil-Jurys vergeben am oberen Rand einer beliebigen Preis für die tatsächlichen Schäden, die Opfer erlitten haben, - sind zu bestrafen, besonders gravierenden Fehlverhalten der Corporate Handlungen, die aus Bosheit oder Gier, zur Abschreckung und ähnliche Missstände in der Zukunft. In the 19th century, courts generally demanded a clear assignment of fault in cases where victims sued for injuries caused by malfunctioning products. It was hard for plaintiffs to recover in personal-injury cases unless the corporation was obviously at fault. Es war hart für die Kläger zu erholen und persönlichen Verletzungen-Fälle, es sei denn, das Unternehmen war offensichtlich Verschulden trifft. 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. Aber im 20. Jahrhundert, in die Haftung bei einem rasch wachsenden Gruppe von potenziell gefährlichen Produkten wie Autos, Medikamente und medizinische Geräte, Gerichte zunehmend ein Standard der "verschuldensunabhängigen Haftung", wonach die Hersteller zahlen sollten oder nicht, ob sie direkt an Schuld.

The animating idea was that manufacturers were in the best position to prevent accidents by improving their products with better design and testing. Die Idee war, dass das Beleben Hersteller waren in der besten Position um zu verhindern, dass Unfälle durch die Verbesserung ihrer Produkte mit einer besseren Gestaltung und Erprobung. 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. Sie und ihre Versicherungs-Gesellschaften (und nicht nur die Gesellschaft als Ganzes) würde Schulter die Kosten der Unfälle, wodurch sie einen Anreiz, ihre Produkte sicherer zu machen. 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. Ermutigt von Ralph Nader's Buch "Unsafe at Any Speed", erschienen im Jahre 1965, begann Gerichten, um zu sehen, wie Autounfälle vorhersehbare Ereignisse, die besser Auto Design hätte verhindert werden. 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 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: