Analysis: In shadow of landmark decisions, U.S. high court also rules for business

And you people think it’s the President’s fault….lol

Wake Up America, lifetime appointments don’t work..

2 from Reagan
2 from George W Bush
2 from Clinton
2 from Obama
1 from George H.W. Bush

Most of these cases were decide 5-4….see the trend now? And ask yourself this, should a President have the power to push his parties agenda(s) with these appointments, even after 20+ years?

You want term limits in Congress, you need term limits here ass well.

I can’t speak for the other cases cited in this article, but while the Koontz case was a welcome relief for property rights supporters, it was not a big surprise.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that there must be an “essential nexus” between the impact a project has and the conditions placed on it by the permitting governmental agency. Beyond that, government demands become a taking for which the property owner must be compensated;

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
Dolan v. City of Tigard

Unfortunately, government agencies, even after Nollan and Dolan, continue to attempt to bully property owners;
Charlie Johnson & family v. E.P.A.
Sackett V. E.P.A.
Altman and Atid v. California Coastal Commission

I agree that lifetime appointments is an idea that should be up for debate. Term limits are the biggest government check on corruption that we have. The idea is that lifetime supreme court appointments frees the justices somewhat from the outside influences of money and, accountability for their decisions and political brinksmanship. The problem are pretty much the same as these supposed advantages.

The court would not be so overtly one sided on numerous of these issues if they thought they would have opportunities in the future to defend their political constituency. You see, the GOPers on the court know their days are numbered, so they are getting in as much of their masters bidding as they can. Don’t for one minute believe that the recent ruling on gay marriage was a calculated way to strengthen the GOPs chances in near future elections. They estimate that many gay will return to the republicans now that the evangelical core of the GOP can no longer expect laws that discriminate as they wish.

This court is making as much sense as Washington. We are surrounded by incompetent government employees.

@DrFrankNFurter – Great post!!

@usa.wi.vet.4q – I would like to see you hold the position of an elected official just to see how well you perform. It’s easy to criticize, it is much more difficult to come up with a solution.

Speaking of “curbing the ability of consumers to file mass claims against companies over such matters as defective products and unfair practices…” a rhetorical question: can the Supreme Court stop or limit shipping of our jobs and technology to China and import of their junk to US?..

@DrFrankNFurter

So you would rather have term limits? That means that in an 8 year period a party could completely take over the supreme court. Great idea. I am sure you would love it if Obama could stacked 9 justices. But you would have been crying if Bush stacked 9 justices. Go back and take a bigger look at what you posted.

Reagan is long dead, two of his appointments are still there. They are not beholden to either of the Bushes, Clinton, or Obama. They are free to judge how the feel fit. Generally a lifetime appointment is 30-40 years. As these people tend to step down and retire rather than stay for life. They don’t have to run for any office, hence they aren’t involved in any of the buy outs that most politicians receive. I think this system works ok as is.

I remember the same arguments by conservatives during the Warren Court years. Same argument (or a similar one) when Chief Justice Taney gave the Dredd Scott decision. And so on and so on. One needs to look at a whole body of work and relate it to the basic document, the Constitution of the United States. Court packing was voted down in 1937. It should not occur unless we want to change the entire Constitution. It WOULD take an amendment to the Constitution. Not likely.

Check and Balance…. That’s what the Supreme Court is all about… That’s why the Founders wanted a Judicial Branch independent from both Legislative and Executive… SCOTUS balances out the wild swings between Progressive and Conservative elements that each periodically take over the National Agenda.. It’s currently the Progressive element that is being ‘balanced’….They don’t like it.. but it’s necessary to keep everyone ‘grounded in the Constitution’… The tables will turn one day; they always do…