If you think the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice is all about culture wars, think again.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says about 40 percent of cases heard by the Supreme Court in the last two years were business-related — including the recent eminent domain case affirming the right of a municipality to condemn private property to benefit private economic development.
The efforts to influence the President’s selection by those who self-identify as social liberals and social conservatives are well-known. What’s not so well known is the lobbying by big business.
The Chamber of Commerce briefs the White House on the business-related decisions of federal appeals court judges and has been doing so for 2 1/2 years according to a report in the Washington Post.
"We needed to be proactive, to make the business view known," Stanton D. Anderson told the Post. Anderson is the Chamber of Commerce’s chief legal officer.
In addition to campaigning by the Chamber of Commerce, groups called the Committee for Justice and Progress for America are weighing in heavily with the White House, including raising big money to help with the confirmation of the President’s nominee(s) — assuming, we suppose, the nominees have demonstrated a healthy regard for business in the lower courts.
Some observers believe the vacancy opened by Justice O’Connor’s retirement — and the one to follow sooner or later when the Chief Justice retires — may be the occasion for struggle between social conservatives who want to keep the federal government out of State cases and big business advocates who want federal protection from State by State oversight and big judgments levied in jury trials.
Justice O’Connor was seen as a consistent supporter of business concerns while often ruling against socially conservative actions before the court.
Had you an opinion about any of this, now would be the time to weigh in with your U.S. Senators and the White House.
Comment: (One)
Supreme Court Nominee
This morning on NPR there was a major expose on Judge Roberts activities while a deputy attorney general under Reagan and William French Smith. Somehow they had found (in the 14,000 pages of documents sent to the congressional committee) notes made in the margin during some meetings comments by the (now) Judge that reflect his instant reaction to various people speaking at the meeting. How picayune can you get? I think the man should be evaluated on the basis of his written, reasoned positions, not on the basis of his doodlings in the margin during some meeting. Its all well and good to talk about how Congress is going to be broadminded, have given up the filibuster rather than have it permanently taken away, etc. but this is rediculous! The man is being hounded out of office before he gets in because he is a staunch Catholic and is pro-life. I hope they give the man a thumbs up or down vote asap. If not, this kind of scrutiny is the next best thing to a filibuster, and should be stopped.