For Jillian

[Annie]

Perhaps one reason to read 'blogs?' Then again, might not fit the talking points. Oh, lots of links at site, from both excerpts.

Althouse: "The Roberts court has championed corporations. The cases it has chosen for review this term suggest it will continue that trend."

October 4, 2010
"The Roberts court has championed corporations. The cases it has chosen for review this term suggest it will continue that trend."
Says the NYT.

Of the 51 it has so far decided to hear, over 40 percent have a corporation on one side. The most far-reaching example of the Roberts court’s pro-business bias was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, the conservative justices overturned a century of precedent to give corporations, along with labor unions, an unlimited right to spend money in politics....

The cases scheduled for argument in the next few months may appear modest. But if there is one lesson from the Citizens United ruling, it is that nothing — for this court — is inevitably modest.
​

By contrast, here's The Conglomerate, a stable, sober lawprof blog:

Looking ahead to the upcoming Supreme Court term, the pickings of corporate, securities, and financial regulation cases at first blush seem slim. We were spoiled last term by an amazingly rich set of cases in these fields, with Citizens United headlining....

The corporate/securities/financial cases generally look to be fairly specific to the industries involved. But, when you are dealing with the Supremes, you can never tell; the Court can unexpectedly uncork a broad, sweeping ruling. Moreover, thanks to the unceasing creativity of lawyers, even stray language in an opinion can have unintended ripple effects.​

You decide if you want to read mainstream journalism or one of those crazy blogs.
Posted by Ann Althouse at 9:40 AM

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In Duran vs. Leonard, the Court said, "No Mas!"