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 La sede de los EE.UU. Cámara de Comercio, ubicado al frente del Parque Lafayette en Washington, es una estructura de piedra caliza que se ve casi tan majestuosa como la Supreme Court Corte Suprema . The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. La similitud no es coincidencia: ambos edificios fueron diseñados por el mismo arquitecto, 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. Últimamente, sin embargo, las afinidades entre la corte y la cámara, un ricamente financiados organización de defensa de la empresa, parecen ser algo más que de arquitectura. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. El Tribunal Supremo plazo que finalizó el pasado mes de junio fue, de todas las medidas, excepcionalmente bueno para los negocios estadounidenses. 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. La cámara de litigios del centro presentaron 15 casos y en su parte ganó en 13 de ellos - el más alto porcentaje de victorias en el centro de 30 años de historia. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests. El actual mandato, que termina este verano, también ha sido perfila muy bien para los intereses de las empresas.

I visited the chamber recently to talk with Robin Conrad, who heads the litigation effort, about her recent triumphs. He visitado recientemente la sala para hablar con Robin Conrad, que encabeza el esfuerzo de los litigios, sobre su reciente triunfos. 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, una atractiva, de voz suave mujer, vive con su familia en una granja de caballos en Maryland, donde paseos con un club de caza de zorro-llamado el Condado de Howard-Puente de Hierro Hounds. Her office, playfully adorned by action figures of women like Xena the Warrior Princess and Su oficina, juguetonamente adornado por figuras de acción de la mujer como Xena la Princesa y el guerrero Hillary Rodham Clinton Hillary Rodham Clinton , has one of the most impressive views in Washington. , Tiene una de las más impresionantes vistas en Washington. “You can see the White House through the trees,” she said as we peered through a window overlooking the park. "Se puede ver la Casa Blanca a través de los árboles", dijo ella como peered a través de una ventana con vistas al parque. “In the old days, you could actually see people bathing in the fountain. "En los viejos tiempos, se podía ver gente de baño en la fuente. Homeless people.” Las personas sin hogar. "

Conrad was in an understandably cheerful mood. Conrad es, comprensiblemente, en un ambiente alegre. Though the current Supreme Court has a well-earned reputation for divisiveness, it has been surprisingly united in cases affecting business interests. A pesar de que la actual Corte Suprema de Justicia tiene una bien ganada reputación de la división, ha sido sorprendentemente unidos en los casos que afecten a los intereses empresariales. Of the 30 business cases last term, 22 were decided unanimously, or with only one or two dissenting votes. De los 30 casos de empresas último término, el 22 se decidió por unanimidad, o con sólo uno o dos votos disidentes. 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 dice que se siente especialmente satisfecho de que varias de las decisiones más importantes fueron escritos por los jueces liberales, en nombre de sus colegas liberales y conservadores por igual. In opinions last term, En último término opiniones, 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, David Souter y cada uno salió de su camino a la utilización de las demandas judiciales para impugnar las empresas infractor - una estrategia progresiva defendidas por grupos como Public Citizen Pública Ciudadana 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.’ ” Pero sistemáticamente denunciado por los conservadores como "la regulación de los litigios." Conrad reeled off algunos de sus momentos favoritos: "Justicia Ginsburg habló de cómo" el fraude de valores privados-acciones, de no ser adecuadamente figura, puede ser empleado abusivamente ". Breyer Justicia había un maravilloso Cotizaciones acerca de cómo el Congreso está tratando de 'acabar con el infundadas juicios de valores'. Souter Justicia habló de la manera en que la amenaza de acciones judiciales "hará que los acusados conscientes de los costos para solucionar". "

Examples like these point to an ideological sea change on the Supreme Court. Ejemplos como estos apuntan a un cambio ideológico en la Corte Suprema. 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. Hace una generación, progresista y los grupos de consumidores solicitando el tribunal puede contar con dictámenes favorables de la mayoría escritos por los jueces, que vieron con escepticismo las grandes empresas - o incluso simples prejuicios. 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.” Un económica populista como William O. Douglas, el ex cruzado New Deal, quien participó en el tribunal desde 1939 hasta 1975, una vez unapologetically anunció que estaba "dispuesto a doblar la ley a favor del medio ambiente y en contra de las empresas".

Today, however, there are no economic populists on the court, even on the liberal wing. Hoy, sin embargo, no existen económicas populistas en la cancha, incluso en el ala liberal. And ever since Y desde entonces John Roberts John Roberts was appointed chief justice in 2005, the court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Fue nombrado jefe de la justicia en 2005, el tribunal tiene sólo parecía más receptivo a las preocupaciones de la empresa. Forty percent of the cases the court heard last term involved business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years. El cuarenta por ciento de los casos, el tribunal escuchó último término los intereses de las empresas involucradas, en comparación con alrededor del 30 por ciento en los últimos años. 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. Si bien la Corte Rehnquist escucha menos de una decisión antimonopolio un año, en promedio, entre 1988 y 2003, el Tribunal ha escuchado Roberts siete en sus dos primeros términos - y todos ellos se decidieron a favor de las empresas demandadas.

Business cases at the Supreme Court typically receive less attention than cases concerning issues like affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. Negocios casos en la Corte Suprema suelen recibir menos atención que los casos relativos a cuestiones como la acción afirmativa, el aborto o la pena de muerte. The disputes tend to be harder to follow: the legal arguments are more technical, the underlying stories less emotional. Los conflictos tienden a ser más difícil de seguir: los fundamentos jurídicos que son más técnicos, las historias menos emocional. 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. Pero estos casos - que incluyen trajes de accionistas, de defensa de los retos a fusiones de empresas, los litigios de patentes y los esfuerzos por reducir el daño punitivo de premios y la responsabilidad de evitar que el producto se adapte - no son menos importantes. 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. Se trata de miles de millones de dólares, tienen enormes consecuencias para la economía y puede tener un efecto mayor en la vida cotidiana que a menudo las batallas simbólicas de la cultura guerras. 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. En la actual Corte Suprema plazo, los jueces ya han bloqueado un pasivo demanda contra Medtronic, el fabricante de un catéter central, y rechazó un tipo de accionista traje que incluye una demanda contra 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. En los próximos meses, el tribunal decidirá si el mayor para reducir los daños punitivos-premio en la historia de América, que fue el resultado de los derrames de petróleo del Exxon Valdez en 1989.

What should we make of the Supreme Court’s transformation? ¿Qué debemos hacer de la Corte Suprema respecto a la transformación? 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. A lo largo de su historia, el tribunal ha tendido a emitir dictámenes, en los ámbitos de la libertad de expresión de la igualdad de género, o que reflejan la consolidación de un consenso social. 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. Con sus pro-negocios jurisprudencia, los jueces pueden ser captura de un nuevo espíritu de acuerdo entre las élites conservadoras y liberales sobre el valor de la libertad de los mercados. 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. Entre las clases profesionales, muchos demócratas y republicanos, cualesquiera que sean sus desacuerdos otros, han llegado a compartir un relativamente laissez-faire, la visión tecnocrática de la economía y son sospechosas de una reglamentación excesiva y reflexiva esfuerzos para vilipendiar las grandes empresas. Judges, lawyers and law professors (such as myself) drilled in cost-benefit analysis over the past three decades, are no exception. Jueces, abogados y profesores de derecho (como yo) perforado en el análisis coste-beneficio en los últimos tres decenios, no son la excepción. 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. Se debe sorprender demasiado que John Roberts y Stephen Breyer, quienes estudiaron el análisis económico del derecho en la Universidad de Harvard, han instintos similares en los casos de negocios.

This elite consensus, however, is not necessarily shared by the country as a whole. Esta elite consenso, sin embargo, no es necesariamente compartida por el país en su conjunto. If anything, America may be entering something of a populist moment. En todo caso, América puede entrar algo de un momento populista. 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. Si se combinan los grupos de los estadounidenses en una reciente encuesta de Pew, que inclinarse hacia alguna cepa de populismo económico - de los conservadores y los demócratas desafectos a los liberales tradicionales para grandes y social-conservadores del gobierno - al menos dos tercios de todos los votantes sin duda sienten simpatía por el gobierno Intervención en la economía. Could it be, then, that the court is reflecting an elite consensus while contravening the sentiments of most Americans? ¿Podría ser, entonces, que el tribunal es que refleja un consenso de élite mientras contraviniendo el sentir de la mayoría de los americanos? Only history will ultimately make this clear. Sólo la historia hará finalmente esta claro. One thing, however, is certain already: the transformation of the court was no accident. Sin embargo, una cosa es segura ya: la transformación de la corte no es casualidad. 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. Representa la culminación de un bien planeado y por detrás de las campañas durante varias décadas para cambiar no sólo los tribunales, sino también la cultura política del país.

II. II.

The origins of the business community’s campaign to transform the Supreme Court can be traced back precisely to Aug. 23, 1971. Los orígenes de la comunidad empresarial para transformar la campaña de la Corte Suprema se remonta precisamente a Agosto 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. Ese fue el día en que Lewis F. Powell Jr, un abogado corporativo en Richmond, Virginia, escribió una nota a su amigo Eugene B. Snydor, entonces el jefe de la comisión de educación de los EE.UU. Cámara de Comercio. 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, En el memo, Powell expresó su preocupación de que el sistema económico de América fue "en el amplio ataque". Identificó varios agresores: la Nueva Izquierda, el liberal de los medios de comunicación, los estudiantes rebeldes de los campus universitarios y, lo más importante, 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. A principios de año, Nader fundó Ciudadano Público para abogar por los derechos de los consumidores, de defensa de las acciones que cuando el Departamento de Justicia y no demandar a las agencias federales que no se adopten los reglamentos de salud y seguridad.

Powell claimed that this attack on the economic system was “quite new in the history of America.” Ever since 1937, when President Powell afirmó que este ataque contra el sistema económico era "muy nuevo en la historia de América. 1937, cuando el Presidente 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. Amenazó con pack conservadora Corte Suprema con jueces más progresistas, el tribunal había aplazado en gran parte a las leyes federales y estatales reglamentaciones económicas. 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. Y por los años 60, la Corte Suprema de Justicia en virtud del Tribunal Supremo Earl Warren habían adoptado una forma de populismo económico, a menudo a favor de los intereses de las pequeñas empresas sobre las grandes empresas, incluso a costa de los consumidores. 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.” Pero lo que Powell vio en el trabajo de Nader y otros era mucho más extrema: una campaña radical que fue "una base amplia y perseguido".

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. Para contrarrestar la creciente influencia de litigio de interés público y grupos como el Public Citizen, Powell instó a la Cámara de Comercio para iniciar una campaña de cabildeo multifront en nombre de los intereses de las empresas, incluida la contratación de abogados de negocios superior a llevar casos ante la Corte Suprema. “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 "El poder judicial", Powell predijo, "puede ser el instrumento más importante para el desarrollo social, económico y los cambios políticos." Dos meses después de que escribió el memo, Powell fue nombrado por Richard Nixon Richard Nixon to the Supreme Court. A la Corte Suprema. 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. Y seis años más tarde, en 1977, después de ido ampliando su labor de cabildeo, la cámara estableció el Centro Nacional de la Cámara de Litigios de archivo de los casos y la documentación presentada en nombre de los intereses de las empresas en los tribunales federales y estatales.

Today, the Chamber of Commerce is an imposing lobbying force. Hoy, la Cámara de Comercio es una imponente fuerza de cabildeo. 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. Para cumplir su misión de servir a "los intereses de América unificada negocio", que recoge las cuotas de afiliación de más de tres millones de empresas y organizaciones relacionadas con: el año pasado, según el Centro para la Política Responsable, la cámara gastado más de $ 21 millones el cabildeo Blanco Cámara, el Congreso y los organismos de reglamentación en materia jurídica. But its battle against the forces of Naderism got off to a slow start. Pero su batalla contra las fuerzas de Naderism tuvo un comienzo lento. In 1983, when Robin Conrad arrived at the chamber, the Supreme Court was handing Nader and his allies significant victories. En 1983, cuando Robin Conrad llegó a la cámara, la Corte Suprema se entrega Nader y sus aliados importantes victorias. That year, for example, the court held that Ese año, por ejemplo, el tribunal sostuvo que President Reagan Presidente 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, secretario de transporte, Andrew L. Lewis Jr, actuó caprichosamente cuando se derogó un reglamento, inspirado en la defensa de Nader, que requiere de automóviles a instalar las restricciones pasiva como bolsas de aire. In 1986, the chamber supported a challenge to the En 1986, apoyó la cámara de un desafío a la Environmental Protection Agency Agencia de Protección Ambiental ’s aerial surveillance of a Dow Chemical plant. 'S vigilancia aérea de una planta de Dow Chemical. The chamber’s side lost, 5-4. La cámara del lado perdidos, 5-4.

But eventually, things began to change. Pero el tiempo, las cosas empezaron a cambiar. The chamber started winning cases in part by refining its strategy. La cámara empezó a ganar casos, en parte por su estrategia de refino. 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. Con la ayuda de Conrad, la cámara de la Corte Suprema de litigios programa comenzó a ofrecer la práctica discutible-tribunal argumentos de los abogados previsto que sostienen importantes casos. The chamber also began hiring the most-respected Democratic and Republican Supreme Court advocates to persuade the court to hear more business cases. La cámara también se inició la contratación de los más respetados demócratas como republicanos defensores de la Corte Suprema de persuadir a la corte para conocer de los casos de empresas más. 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. Aunque muchas de las empresas que pertenecen a la Cámara de Comercio tienen sus propios abogados en la casa-, que tendría el archivo de cámara de "amigo del tribunal" la documentación presentada en su nombre. 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. La sala decidirá cuál de los muchos casos sometidos a su atención en el largo plazo de interés estratégico de los negocios de América y, a continuación, la principal empresa de alquiler de los abogados de escribir resúmenes o el apoyo a defender el caso.

Until the mid-’80s, there wasn’t an organized group of law firms that specialized in arguing business cases before the Supreme Court. Hasta mediados de los años 80, no había un grupo organizado de los bufetes de abogados especializados en el argumento de que las empresas los casos ante el Tribunal Supremo. 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. Pero en 1985, Rex Lee, el abogado general en virtud de Reagan, salió del gobierno para iniciar un Tribunal Supremo de apelación práctica en la empresa de 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 el objetivo era ofrecer a los clientes de negocios el mismo nivel de representación de expertos ante el Tribunal Supremo que el abogado general de la oficina ofrece a las agencias federales. 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 impulsó el éxito de otros bufetes de abogados para contratar a ex empleados de la Corte Suprema y ex miembros de la oficina del abogado general para iniciar las prácticas comerciales. The Chamber of Commerce, for its part, began to coordinate the strategy of these lawyers in the most important business cases. La Cámara de Comercio, por su parte, comenzó a coordinar la estrategia de los abogados en los casos de negocios más importantes.

At times, the strategic calculations can be quite personal. En ocasiones, los cálculos estratégicos pueden ser muy personales. 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. Dado que empleados de la Corte Suprema tiene una tremenda influencia en la formulación de recomendaciones acerca de lo casos, el tribunal debe oír, Conrad me dijo, después de haber conocido ex empleados en la presentación de un breve puede ser especialmente importante. “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. "Cuando el juez O'Connor fue en el banco y que conocíamos su voto es muy importante, tuvimos un caso en que la oposición ha empleado su favorito en el breve, por lo que conserva su próximo secretario de favorito", dijo con una risa. “We won.” "Hemos ganado".

In our conversation, Conrad was especially enthusiastic about Maureen Mahoney, a former clerk for Chief En nuestra conversación, Conrad fue especialmente entusiasmados con Maureen Mahoney, un ex empleado de Jefe Justice Rehnquist Justicia Rehnquist and one of the top Supreme Court litigators who coordinate strategy with the chamber. Y uno de los principales litigantes del Tribunal Supremo que coordinar la estrategia con la cámara. 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. Cuando Mahoney acordado en 2005 para representar a un llamamiento de los desgraciados empresa Arthur Andersen, que fue condenado en 2002 de la obstrucción de la justicia por la trituración de documentos relacionados con la auditoría de Enron, pocas personas pensaban que la Corte Suprema tendría el caso. “The climate was very anti-Enron,” Mahoney told me, “and it was viewed as a doomed petition.” "El clima es muy anti-Enron", me dijo Mahoney ", y que fue visto como una petición condenados".

Mahoney rehearsed her Supreme Court argument in a moot court sponsored by the chamber. Mahoney ensayado su Tribunal Supremo en un argumento discutible tribunal auspiciado por la cámara. (“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. ( "Ella es absolutamente deslumbrante", recuerda Conrad.) El 27 de abril, 2005, Mahoney era la calma antes de los jueces y pronunció uno de los mejores argumentos orales que nunca he visto en la Corte Suprema. 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. Ella argumentó que debido a que los contadores de Arthur Andersen ha seguido un modelo de documento de destrucción procedimiento antes de recibir la citación del gobierno, que no podían ser culpables de un crimen, sino que no eran conscientes de lo que estaban haciendo era penal. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed and reversed the conviction, 9-0. El Tribunal Supremo acordó por unanimidad y revocó la convicción, 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. El caso Arthur Andersen es un buen ejemplo de cómo significativamente la Corte Suprema ha cambiado su actitud acerca de los casos de fraude de valores - y más en general los casos de empresas - de la Warren Roberts a la era. 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. En un caso en 1964, el tribunal dictaminó que los inversores y los consumidores agraviados pueden presentar demandas privadas para hacer cumplir las leyes de valores, incluso en los casos en que el Congreso no ha creado expresamente un derecho a demandar. In the mid-1990s, however, Congress substantially cut back on these citizen suits, and the court today has shown little patience for them. A mediados del decenio de 1990, sin embargo, el Congreso recortar sustancialmente sobre estas demandas de ciudadanos, y hoy el tribunal ha demostrado poca paciencia para ellos. 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 dice que ve su victoria en el caso de Arthur Andersen como significativa, ya que el mismo principio se aplica en los casos penales relativos a la empresa culpable de que el tribunal ya había sido en el reconocimiento de las causas civiles, a saber, "se niega a crear mayores daños remedios o sanciones penales que el Congreso Ha especificado explícitamente. "Ella describe el caso como" una victoria muy importante para los negocios. "

This term, the Supreme Court has continued to cut back on consumer suits. Este término, el Tribunal Supremo ha seguido a disminuir el consumo trajes. 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. En una decisión en enero, el tribunal se negó a permitir que un accionista contra la Carta a los proveedores de comunicaciones, uno de los más grande del país compañías de cable. 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. Los proveedores fueron acusados de haber "ayudado" Carta de los esfuerzos para inflar sus ganancias, pero el tribunal sostuvo que la Carta de los inversores tuvieron que demostrar que se había basado en la engañosa actos cometidos por los proveedores antes de que la demanda podría proceder. 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. Una semana después, el tribunal invocó el mismo principio cuando se negó a escuchar una apelación en un caso relacionado con Enron, en la que los inversores están tratando de recuperar 40 millones de dólares de los bancos de Wall Street que dicen que con la complicidad del fraude de Enron. As a result, the shareholder suit against the banks may be dead. Como resultado de ello, la demanda contra los accionistas de los bancos pueden ser muertos.

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. Además de los casos en litigio ante el tribunal, la Cámara de Comercio también los grupos de presión del Congreso y la Casa Blanca en un esfuerzo por modificar la composición de la propia corte. (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 (A diferencia de muchos otros funcionarios del gobierno, los propios jueces no son, por supuesto, sin perjuicio de las empresas de cabildeo directo.) La cámara de los esfuerzos en este ámbito se inspira en Robert Bork Robert Bork ’s thwarted nomination to the court in 1987. 'S frustrado nombramiento a la corte en 1987. Business groups were enthusiastic about Bork — not because of his conservative social views but because of his skepticism of vigorous antitrust enforcement. Los grupos empresariales se entusiasmado con la idea de Bork - no a causa de sus opiniones, sino conservadores sociales a causa de su escepticismo vigoroso de hacer cumplir la legislación antimonopolio. “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. "En respuesta a la nominación Bork, que nos sorprendió que no tienen siquiera un proceso en lugar de ser un jugador", dijo Conrad.

So the chamber set up a formal process for endorsing candidates after their nominations. Por tanto, la cámara de establecer un proceso formal para aprobar los candidatos después de sus candidaturas. The process was designed to be bipartisan; and the chamber has encouraged Democratic as well as Republican presidents to appoint justices. El proceso fue diseñado para ser bipartidista, y la cámara ha alentado Democrática Republicana, así como presidentes de nombrar jueces. Nominees are evaluated solely through the prism of their views about business. Los nominados son evaluados únicamente a través del prisma de sus puntos de vista acerca de los negocios. “We’re very surgical in our analysis,” Conrad said. "Estamos muy quirúrgico en nuestro análisis", dijo Conrad.

After the election of Después de la elección de 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. , Por ejemplo, la cámara hizo suya Ruth Bader Ginsburg, quien además de sus logros como pionero de la cabeza de los derechos de la mujer en el proyecto ACLU ha especializado, como un profesor de derecho, en el complejo de normas de procedimiento en casos civiles y era confortable Con los puntos más importantes de negocio litigio. 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. La cámara está especialmente entusiasmado con la idea de Clinton, el segundo candidato, Stephen Breyer, quien hizo su nombre la construcción de un consenso bipartidista para la desregulación de líneas aéreas como abogado especial en el comité judicial, y que, como profesor de Derecho de Harvard, y abogó por una influyente opinión moderada De hacer cumplir la legislación antimonopolio.

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. Durante las audiencias de confirmación del Breyer su aguda crítica fue Ralph Nader, que declararon que su negocio en favor de los fallos eran "extraordinariamente unilateral." Otro crítico, el senador Howard Metzenbaum de Ohio, dice que el hecho de que la cámara fue la primera organización que Apoyar Breyer indicó que "las grandes empresas están muy contentos con esta nominación", y "el hecho de que Ralph Nader se opone a que se indica que el promedio en los Estados Unidos tiene una razón de tener cierta preocupación." La cámara el imprimátur ayudado a tranquilizar a los republicanos sobre Breyer, Y fue confirmada con un voto de 87 a 9. “Frankly, we didn’t feel like we had anyone on the court since Justice Powell who truly understood business issues,” Conrad told me. "Francamente, no siento como que había alguien en el tribunal desde que el magistrado Powell realmente entiende su negocio", me dijo Conrad. “Justice Breyer came close to that.” "Justicia Breyer estuvo cerca de eso".

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 La presentación de candidaturas Ginsburg y Breyer también se produjo en un momento liberal conservador, así como los jueces y los académicos se gravitacional en un número cada vez mayor de un enfoque económico a la ley, originalmente desarrollado en el University of Chicago Universidad de 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. El derecho de circulación y de la economía trató de evaluar la eficacia de las normas jurídicas sobre la base de sus costos y beneficios para la sociedad en su conjunto. 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. Aunque en un principio conservador en su orientación, el movimiento atrajo también moderados y liberales prominentes académicos y jueces como Breyer, quien antes de su nombramiento escribió dos libros sobre la reglamentación, argumentando que el gobierno de salud y seguridad del gasto es distorsionada por los medios de comunicación sensacionalistas informes de los desastres que afectan a Un número relativamente reducido de ciudadanos.

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. Desde que se incorporó a la Corte Suprema, Breyer también ha sido un líder intelectual en defensa de la competencia y las disputas de patentes, que a menudo contra la piscina de los negocios empresariales, en lugar de las empresas contra los consumidores. 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. En estos casos, muchos eruditos liberales que simpatizan con el análisis económico han aplaudido el tribunal para favorecer la competencia en lugar de los competidores existentes, la innovación en lugar de particular los innovadores. “The court deserves credit for trying to rationalize a totally irrational patent system, benefiting smaller new competitors rather than existing big ones,” says "El tribunal merece crédito por tratar de racionalizar totalmente irracional sistema de patentes, en beneficio de los nuevos competidores más pequeños y no a las actuales grandes", dice Lawrence Lessig Lawrence Lessig , an intellectual-property scholar at Stanford. , Un estudioso de propiedad intelectual en Stanford.

Clinton’s nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer may have been welcomed by the chamber, but with the election of Clinton candidaturas de Ginsburg y Breyer puede haber sido bien recibida por la cámara, pero con la elección de George W. Bush George W. Bush , the chamber faced a dilemma. , La cámara se enfrenta a un dilema. 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. Desde que la Administración Reagan, se había producido una brecha en el ala derecha de la corte pragmático entre los conservadores de libre mercado, que tiende a favorecer los intereses empresariales, y los derechos de los estados ideológicos conservadores. In some business cases, these two strands of conservatism diverged, leading the most staunch states-rights conservatives on the court, En algunos casos de empresas, estos dos elementos de conservadurismo divergentes, el líder más firme de los derechos de los estados conservadores de la corte, Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia and Y Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas , to rule against business interests. , La regla en contra de los intereses de las empresas. 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 y Thomas se mostraron reacios a segunda adivinar grandes daños punitivos de los veredictos de los jurados estatales, por ejemplo, o para celebrar que el gobierno federal regula los fabricantes de cigarrillos no puede ser demandado en un tribunal estatal. As a result, under Conrad’s leadership, the chamber began a vigorous campaign to urge the Bush administration to appoint pro-business conservatives. Como resultado de ello, bajo la dirección de Conrad, la cámara inició una vigorosa campaña para instar a la administración Bush de nombrar a las empresas en favor de los conservadores.

When it came time to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Cuando llegó el momento de sustituir el Presidente del Tribunal Supremo William Rehnquist y la Justicia 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. , El candidato más apoyado con entusiasmo por los estados de los derechos de los conservadores, el magistrado Michael Luttig, había un registro de la Corte de Apelaciones del Cuarto Circuito que algunos intereses corporativos podría hacer temer lo imprevisible de la actividad comercial. (“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. ( "Uno de mis constantes que se abstiene es conservador no significa necesariamente ser pro-negocios", me dijo Conrad.) La cámara y otros grupos empresariales con entusiasmo el apoyo de John Roberts, que había sido contratado por la Cámara de escribir en dos escritos Corte Suprema en los casos de 2001 y 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. En el momento de la nominación de Roberts, Thomas Goldstein, un destacado Tribunal Supremo pleiteador, lo describió como "la de ir a abogado de la comunidad de negocios", agregando "de todos los candidatos, él es el que mejor sabía." Cuando Roberts fue nominado, grupos empresariales presionado senadores como parte de la campaña de su confirmación.

The business community was also enthusiastic about La comunidad empresarial también entusiasmado con la idea de Samuel Alito Samuel Alito , whose 15-year record as an appellate judge showed a consistent skepticism of claims against large corporations. , Cuyo historial de 15 años como juez de apelación mostró un escepticismo de las reclamaciones contra las grandes corporaciones. 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 de la American Enterprise Institute previsto en el momento de la presentación de candidaturas que, si Alito sustituye O'Connor, y Roberts podría traer un aumento de los casos de empresas ante el Tribunal Supremo. Frank’s prediction was soon vindicated. Frank antes de la predicción fue reivindicado.

“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. "No había un gran interés en los clásicos casos de negocios en los últimos años de la Corte Rehnquist", Carter Phillips, socio de Sidley Austin y una de las principales Tribunal Supremo de negocios abogado, me dijo. 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. En 2004, el juez Richard Posner, uno de los fundadores de la ley y la economía de movimiento, sostuvo que la Corte Rehnquist énfasis en el título constitucional-el acaparamiento de los casos se había politizado, y pidió a la corte para conocer de los casos de empresas más. The Roberts court has unambiguously answered the call. El juez Roberts ha respondido a la llamada sin ambigüedades. As Phillips told me, Roberts “is more interested in those issues and understands them better than his predecessor did.” Como me dijo Phillips, Roberts "está más interesada en estos temas y entiende mejor que su predecesor lo hizo."

IV. IV.

Exactly how successful has the Chamber of Commerce been at the Supreme Court? Exactamente cómo el éxito ha sido la Cámara de Comercio en la Corte Suprema? 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. Aunque el tribunal acepta en la actualidad menos del 2 por ciento de las 10000 peticiones que recibe cada año, la Cámara de Comercio de peticiones entre 2004 y 2007 se otorgaron a una tasa de 26 por ciento, de acuerdo con 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. Y persuadir a la Corte Suprema para conocer de un asunto es más de la mitad de la batalla: Richard Lazarus, un profesor de derecho de Georgetown, que también representa a los clientes del medio ambiente ante el tribunal, emitieron recientemente los números y determinó que el tribunal revierte el tribunal inferior en el 65 por ciento de Los casos que de acuerdo en escuchar, y cuando el demandante se encuentra representada por la élite Tribunal Supremo defiende habitualmente contratados por la cámara, la tasa de éxito se eleva al 75 por ciento.

Faced with these daunting numbers, the progressive antagonists of big business are understandably feeling beleaguered and outgunned. Frente a estas desalentadoras cifras, la progresiva antagonistas de las grandes empresas son asediados y comprensible sentimiento 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. "La lucha ante el tribunal generalmente no es aún una", dijo David Vladeck, quien trabajó para el Grupo de Litigio Público Ciudadano y ahora enseña Derecho de 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.” "Hay en nosotros una de las partes, con un breve o dos, y de la industria en el otro lado, con una buena coordinación de campaña de 10 o 12 sesiones de información, con cada uno de ellos escrito por un miembro de la Corte Suprema de élite que se trate un bar Cuestión en profundidad enorme. "Él agregó, ruefully," Usted admirar su obra, pero es frustrante como para tratar con el infierno. "

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. Para medir el grado de la frustración, recientemente realizó una visita a Ralph Nader, unas semanas antes de que él anunció su más reciente campaña para presidente de los Estados Unidos. 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. Fue una sorpresa encontrar que su oficina, el Centro para el Estudio de la Ley de respuesta, comparte una dirección en un gran edificio de la Institución Carnegie para la Ciencia. 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. Sin embargo, la propia oficina, tranquilizadora, está enterrado en la planta baja, donde Nader recibió mí en una mesa de conferencias rodeada de armarios de archivo de peluche se desvaneció con números atrasados de la Madre Jones y La Nación.

Nader was uncontrite about his 2000 run against Nader fue uncontrite acerca de su ejecución en contra de 2000 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. -- Que a menudo se acredita con ayudar a George W. Bush ganar la Presidencia - y él insistió en que Clinton nombró a los jueces, porque como Breyer, Gore habría hecho lo mismo. “Breyer hasn’t been worse than I feared, because I had real concern when he was nominated,” Nader told me. "Breyer no ha sido peor de lo que yo temía, porque tenía verdadera preocupación cuando fue nombrado," me dijo Nader. He conceded that, like Breyer, Democratic justices appointed by President Él admite que, al igual que Breyer, Democrática jueces nombrados por el Presidente John Kerry John Kerry would presumably have been better on civil rights and liberties than John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Presumiblemente haber sido mejor en los derechos civiles y las libertades que John Roberts y 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. No obstante, Breyer despreciado como una "desregulación cuasi ideólogo" que fue capaz de tejer una "tapiz de la ilusión" en sus argumentos por tratar en abstracciones.

The main casualty of the 2000 run, Nader said, is that he is no longer collaborating with America’s trial lawyers. La principal víctima de ejecutar el 2000, Nader dijo, es que él ya no está colaborando con los Estados Unidos el juicio de los abogados. They would ordinarily be his natural allies in representing consumer interests, but they donated heavily to Gore’s campaign. Ellos normalmente se sus aliados naturales en la representación de los intereses de los consumidores, sino que donó fuertemente a la campaña de Gore. After 2000, the trial lawyers “have been vitriolic,” Nader explained. Después de 2000, el juicio los abogados "han sido virulenta", explicó 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. Él culpa a ellos para no utilizar su dinero para ayudar a contrarrestar la influencia de la Cámara de Comercio y otros grupos empresariales ante los tribunales federales. In part as a result of their stinginess, he said, his colleagues at Public Citizen are underfinanced and worn down. En parte como resultado de su avaricia, dijo, sus colegas en Ciudadano Público están desfinanciados y desgastado. “There were some lawyers who left Public Citizen because they got tired of losing,” he said. "Hay algunos abogados que se fueron Pública Ciudadana, ya que se cansaron de perder", dijo. “Everyone is desperately trying to hold on to whatever issues are left, and then they become demoralized and discouraged.” "Todo el mundo está tratando desesperadamente de aferrarse a lo que son cuestiones de la izquierda, y luego de que se conviertan en desmoralizado y desalentado".

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. Treinta años después de que la Cámara de Comercio, fundó su centro de los litigios para contrarrestar su influencia, pero todos Nader reconoció la derrota en la batalla por el Tribunal Supremo. 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. Con el declive de populismo económico en el Congreso, el debilitamiento de los sindicatos y el surgimiento de la globalización, el clima político, el orador lamentó, se pasa por él. “I recall a comment by Eugene Debs,” Nader said, looking at me intensely. "Recuerdo un comentario de Eugene Debs", dijo Nader, que me mira intensamente. “He said: The American people live in a country where they can have almost anything they want. "Él dijo: El pueblo norteamericano vive en un país donde puedan tener casi cualquier cosa que deseen. And my regret is that it seems that they don’t want much of anything at all.” Y mi pesar es que parece que no quieren mucho de nada en absoluto. "

Nader chuckled quietly and shook his head. Nader chuckled tranquilamente y sacudió la cabeza. “I say ditto.” "Yo le digo idem".

V. V.

If there is an anti-Nader — a crusading lawyer passionately devoted to the pro-business cause — it is Theodore Olson. Si hay un anti-Nader - una cruzada abogado apasionadamente dedicada a la causa pro-negocios - es 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. Uno de los más influyentes defensores de la Corte Suprema y un ex procurador general bajo el presidente George W. Bush, Olson es mejor conocido por su argumento de ganar ante la Corte Suprema de Bush v. Gore en el 2000. But Olson has devoted most of his energies in private practice to changing the legal and political climate for American business. Pero Olson ha dedicado la mayor parte de sus energías en la práctica privada a la evolución jurídica y política del clima para los negocios estadounidenses. 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. De acuerdo con sus pares en la Corte Suprema de elite bar, él más que nadie es responsable de transformar el enfoque de uno de los más importantes los intereses legales de la comunidad de negocios de América: los daños punitivos otorgados a las víctimas de la negligencia de la empresa.

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. Daños punitivos - dinero otorgado por los jurados civiles en la parte superior de cualquier daño real otorgado para que las víctimas han sufrido - están diseñadas para sancionar especialmente flagrantes actos de mala conducta corporativa como resultado de la malicia o la codicia, y para disuadir infracciones similares en el futuro. In the 19th century, courts generally demanded a clear assignment of fault in cases where victims sued for injuries caused by malfunctioning products. En el siglo 19, los tribunales en general, exigía una clara asignación de la culpa en los casos en que las víctimas demandado por las lesiones causadas por el mal funcionamiento de los productos. It was hard for plaintiffs to recover in personal-injury cases unless the corporation was obviously at fault. Es difícil para los demandantes a recuperarse en casos de lesiones personales, a menos que la empresa era, evidentemente, la culpa. 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. Pero en el siglo 20, la responsabilidad en los casos de una rápida expansión de la clase de productos potencialmente peligrosos, como los automóviles, los medicamentos y dispositivos médicos, los tribunales aplican cada vez más un nivel de "responsabilidad objetiva", que celebró que los fabricantes deben pagar sean o no directamente en Culpa.

The animating idea was that manufacturers were in the best position to prevent accidents by improving their products with better design and testing. La idea de la animación es que los fabricantes están en la mejor posición para prevenir los accidentes mediante la mejora de sus productos con el mejor diseño y ensayo. 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. Ellos y sus compañías de seguros (no de la sociedad en su conjunto) que asumir los costes de los accidentes, por lo tanto, dándoles un incentivo para hacer sus productos más seguros. 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. Alentada por el libro de Ralph Nader, "Inseguro a cualquier velocidad", publicado en 1965, los tribunales comenzaron a ver como los accidentes de tráfico previsibles acontecimientos que mejor diseño de los coches podría haber impedido. 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: