George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen has — or tomorrow will have — a new article out about the pro-business turn of the U.S. Supreme Court these days. He calls it "Supreme Court Inc."
Blawgletter commends the article, which appears in the NYT Sunday magazine, to your reading if you feel more than a passing interest in the interesection of law and economics, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or the Court itself.
Near the end appears this paragraph about whether the next President will appoint an "anti-business" Justice to the Court:
Still, the possibility does exist. If the economy continues to decline and blue-collar voters end up being crucial in the election, a Democratic president might appoint an economic populist to the Supreme Court as a kind of payback. Earlier this month, on the campaign trail in Ohio, Obama mentioned Earl Warren, who served as governor of California before becoming chief justice, as a model of the kind of justice he hoped to appoint. “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through,” Obama said. He praised Warren for understanding that segregation was wrong because of the stigma it attached to blacks, rather than because of the precise nature of its sociological impact. Appointing a former politician to the court would almost certainly introduce a more populist element: the Supreme Court that in 1954 decided Brown v. Board of Education included, in addition to a former governor, three former senators, a former Securities and Exchange Commission member and two former attorneys general. (By contrast, the Roberts court is composed of nine former judges.)