pageok
pageok
pageok
Big Business and the Roberts Court - Panel II:

The second panel at the Santa Clara Law Review symposium on "Big Business and the Roberts Court: Explaining the Court's Receptiveness to Business Interests," featured political scientist J. Mitchell Pickerill of Washington State University, David Franklin of DePaul University of Law, and moderated by Tracy George of Vanderbilt Law School.

David Warner:
"Returning to the data, Pickerill noted that the Clinton Administration did not interrupt -- and, in fact, actually contributed to -- a longer term trend toward a pro-business orientation. Whether the Obama Administration will take a different approach -- and cause a "regime change" -- remains to be seen."

To what? I pro-idleness orientation? Better categories please.
1.23.2009 9:12pm
TGGP (mail) (www):
Were Clinton's picks similarly "conservative" on crime, as with business?
1.23.2009 10:37pm
Real American (mail):
Does it occur to anyone that the "pro-business" side had the better arguments, that the law and facts were on their side and thus "deserved" to win? Why is there this desire to perceive a bias among the conservative justices?

It seems that there is a pre-conceived notion that conservatives are pro-business and this is just another effort to promote that view. Who's to say that the "pro-business" side of things shouldn't have won 100% of the time and thus only winning 73% shows an anti-business slant?
1.24.2009 5:11pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.