by Seth Oldmixon, Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 07:39:19 AM EST
I've written about the Roberts court's sympathy for big business, as evidenced by recentexamples of the decisions that make it much harder for private individuals to take corporations to court.
Yesterday, Doug Kendall reported in Slate that it's not just that cases are going the way of corporate interests, the course of legal thought is changing as well.
It's not just particular cases that the chamber is winning, but also foundational issues that set the course of the law. Stoneridge is what lawyers call a "cause of action" case; it was about whether the plaintiffs could get into the courthouse to ensure the enforcement of the obligations that the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 imposes on corporations. Decades ago, the court ruled that the Exchange Act necessarily implied that victims of corporate misconduct could sue corporations for flouting the clear legal obligations that this law imposes. But starting in 1975, the court began a steady retreat from the idea that judges could "imply" a cause of action, forcing Congress to state clearly that it wants people to be able to sue. In Stoneridge, the court took this a big step further, saying in effect that people cannot sue companies to enforce an obligation under the Exchange Act that the court has not approved in a prior case. This ruling essentially freezes the enforceability of the Exchange Act.
by mefck, Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:55:03 PM EST
I am new to this web site.
Since i have joined, I have been struck by the "progressives", "liberals" or "democrats" who have said they would vote for John McCain over Barack Obama if Obama was the democratic nominee.
To be honest, I am quite shocked about that reaction.
More below the fold....
by stormbear, Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 05:40:41 AM EDT
by sephis1977, Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 05:17:04 PM EDT
With the overturning of the lower court's decision that the warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitional, stating that ACLU had no standing to bring the case, we need to pause for a moment and reassess. I had hope the Appeals court would uphold the lower court decision (but that whole habeus corpus thingy works both way)
Unfortunately, we can't rely on the good will of the court, or even it's moral compass. Now of course, spying on Americans without a warrant is morally wrong, and SHOULD
be illegal, and imo, that reasoning is supported constitutionally.
by The Opportunity Agenda, Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 06:02:46 PM EDT
Cross posted at The State of Opportunity - a blog about human rights and the American Dream. Written by Robert Watts.
The decision today should not prevent school districts from continuing the important work of bringing together students of different racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds -- Justice Anthony Kennedy
The good news is that five members of the U.S. Supreme Court have affirmed that there is a compelling government interest in creating diverse public schools. It's now up to parents, community leaders, members of Congress and supporters of diversity to figure out how to redesign, rethink and tweak programs aimed at creating diverse classes and schools.
Today's Supreme Court decision striking down integration plans in Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Kentucky was surely disappointing. But the ruling does not close the door to diversity or considerations of race.