March 20, 2008
Populism v. Elitism in the Supreme Court
Posted by David Zaring

After the Times's article claiming that the Supreme Court has become more pro-business, Rick Hills gives us a fascinating take on what might be going on:

We are in the midst of a second Gilded Age, in which appointees of either pro-business Democrats (Clinton now, Grover Cleveland then) or pro-business Republicans, dominate the Court. The central thrust of this judicial majority is that judicial creativity in the service of a national market is entirely legitimate. Thus, this Court has crafted a set of doctrines regulating punitive damages and preempting state laws that seem anomalous if one believed that the Court should respect popular democracy. But these doctrines form a principled doctrine entirely consistent with the older Federalist-Whig-Republican tradition of jurocracy. If one sees the courts through Gilded Age lenses, as bulwarks of the national market against parochial and populist local democracy, then we’ve entered a second Gilded Age.

Hills thinks that the elistist, pro-business turn away from populism might be a bad thing, but I'll mildly note that a Court that put the bulk of its work into solving national market problems would be a Court that wouldn't be spending so much time on cases whose consequences are purely symbolic, like flag-burning (though, to be sure, this Court is about to do something about the Second Amendment that won't changes any facts on the ground, but will result in a lot of angsty writing by constitutional law scholars).  The empirical question, I suppose, is whether that is really what this Court is doing.  Amanda Frost thinks the Court spends a lot of time on very technical, all but meaningless circuit splits, and she's got a point.  So I'd say that while it's still unclear that the docket reflects a pro-business turn, Hills has a plausible account of what the justices might be thinking when they do address a case with economic consequences.

Supreme Court | Bookmark

TrackBacks (0)

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Links to weblogs that reference Populism v. Elitism in the Supreme Court:

Comments (1)

1. Posted by Jake on March 20, 2008 @ 17:51 | Permalink

Interesting observation. But wait a minute. Isn't the Commerce Clause in Article I, not Article III? One wonders whether Marshall foresaw all this when he penned Gibbons v. Ogden. (He very likely did.)

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Recent Comments
Popular Threads
Search The Glom
The Glom on Twitter
Archives by Topic
Archives by Date
January 2019
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Miscellaneous Links