Roberts court protects the powerful

As chief justice, John Roberts has shown a strong pro-business tilt. On the eve of the appointment of a replacement for Justice John Paul Stevens, the stakes have never been clearer.


The Roberts court has repeatedly placed corporate interests first and the rights of individuals second, as shown by an in-depth analysis that we just completed, “Unprecedented Injustice: The Political Agenda of the Roberts Court.” In many cases, this court has disregarded precedents and long-held principles to do so.


For those who care about unchecked corporate power, personal freedoms and respect for judicial precedent, the picture revealed by our data isn’t pretty. The record shows that the Roberts court consistently protects the powerful at the expense of the rest of us.


In the 2006-07 term, for example, the Roberts court heard 30 business-related cases and at least 22 — or 73 percent — were decided in favor of large corporations.


A litany of cases heard by the Roberts court, and often decided by 5-4 votes, demonstrates this rightward, pro-Big Business tilt — an approach that will certainly continue, even after a replacement for Stevens has been seated.


According to our analysis, these cases include:


• A consumer seriously injured by a defective medical device cannot sue the manufacturer if the product was approved by federal government regulators — even if the company knew the product was dangerous.


• Exxon was allowed to escape full financial liability for the damage done to communities and the environment by the Exxon Valdez oil spill.


• Two decisions that left many waterways no longer protected by the Clean Water Act, resulting in 1,500 major pollution investigations being halted and a 50 percent reduction in EPA actions against water polluters.


• Corporations have the same constitutional right to free speech as ordinary citizens, which opened the floodgates of unlimited corporate spending in federal elections.


• A woman paid less than her male peers for 20 years had no right to bring a lawsuit for equal pay because she failed to file the suit within 180 days of the first instance of discrimination — though she had no way of learning about the discrimination until years later.


But this pro-Big Business tilt demonstrated in our research is just one part of the story. It seems clear that many Republicans, perhaps prodded by their corporate allies, are herding key programs of the post-New Deal era toward the front door of the Supreme Court.

This is the same scumbag who passed that corporate dictatorship law.

www.politico.com...

A few of those things listed is because that is the way the law is written.

Such as the patient being injured by a medical device and not being able to sue. That was a law passed by Congress that exempted medical and drug manufactures from lawsuits with defective products.

The next one is the clean water act, have to read more on the waterways they were talking about, but the Clean Water Act only allows the government to regulate major shipping and commerce bodies of water.

The Corporation having the same rights as people came from a supreme court case that was decided sometime in the 1870's. So the whole "ignoring precedent" goes out the window on that one.

The women that was denied her lawsuit because she didn't file within the time period allotted. Again the government passed the law that only gave her the time limit within 180 days, which she failed to do. That is why a law was passed earlier last year and signed by Obama extending the time limit to file suit.

So no the Government has a pro-big business slant to it, because that is the way the law is written. Don't blame it on the Supreme Court.