The Business Case for John Roberts
By Pat Cleary Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Earlier this month, the NAM became the first business group to endorse the nomination of judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. This was done by our Judicial Review Committee (JRC), a group of General Counsels and top executives from manufacturing companies.
We have fielded hundreds of calls from reporters, all beginning with one central question: "What in the heck is the NAM doing mucking around in Supreme Court nominations?" After all, in their view, this is the sole province of the groups arrayed around the various social issues. What on earth do we care about social issues?In short, nothing.
Our Judicial Review Committee -- empaneled before Justice O'Connor announced her resignation -- started by developing some criteria. Significantly, they were not results- or outcome-based. You can click here and see them for yourself.(There might be other groups with published criteria, but we've not seen any just yet.) Instead, they focus on things like judicial temperament, his propensity for applying the law as written and his appreciation for the courts' impact on business and commerce. Evaluating Judge Roberts by these criteria, his endorsement by the JRC was unanimous.
So, back to the question at hand: Why on earth do we care?
-- As NAM President John Engler said at the press conference announcing our endorsement, we spend a lot of time on the other two branches but not on the third -- unless you count being a defendant;
-- Hard-fought gains in the first two branches -- the Congress and the Administration -- can be lost in the third branch;
-- Over 80% of a Federal judge's caseload concerns issues with a direct impact on manufacturers, like contract law, employment law, regulator issues and property rights. Here's a link to a one-pager about why we care who's on the federal bench.
Usually at about this point in the conversation, almost every reporter has asked, "Why on earth hasn't business been involved before now?!?" A tougher question for which we have no immediate answer.
One more thing: there is an inverse correlation between predictability of the courts and litigation. That is, the more predictable a court is, the less litigation you have. For every manufacturer, for every business, this is a laudable goal, one we push toward every day. It is our view that Judge Roberts will bring that predictability that the Court needs. In the process, the climate for business will get just a little better.
As the old joke goes, "What do you call a busload of trial lawyers going over a cliff?"
A good start.
With the endorsement of Judge Roberts, we've made a good start.
Perhaps they realize that results-oriented thinking alone won't get them the long-term stability they need.
Justice O'Connor ruled in a way many call favorable to business, but her insistence on keeping things vague left things unstable.
Someone more like Jusice Scalia, who prefers that the court make clear, easy-to-apply rules, is much better for investors and businessmen planning for the future.
I'm happy to see business interests taking a more active role in the Supreme Court. There are too many judges who think hostility towards corporations will give them a name or a legacy.
How can an advocacy group charged with promoting the interests of manufacturers say that they are not results oriented?
A web page is nothing more than a press release.
I completely understand why NAM would be interested in who becomes the next SCOTUS justice. But it is disingenuous to say that they want a fair minded and impartial justice. They want a judge that rules in favor of their interests, as well they should want that.