My Concern With Kagan

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Vladimir says:

    I don’t think we need more pro-business types on the most pro-business Court since the Lochner era. To have someone sympathetic to regulators, who sees things from the perspective of the government, for once, would be a blessing. In this era of corporate misfeasance, when what we need is not only more regulation, but also a court willing to interpret this new regulatory wave generously, in order to keep corporate power at bay.

  2. dave hoffman says:

    I don’t think that familiarity with businesspeople means being “business friendly,” but rather understanding that the stereotype of evil business (or self-interested, maximizing, business) is a bad fit for reality. And I agree with what I take to be Nate’s point, which is that we have plenty of people on the Court already who see things “from the perspective of the government,” sad to say.

  3. Jamison Colburn says:

    I’m not sure what the post means by a “government point-of-view.” It strikes me as either very interesting or very wrong. In practice, there is no more a single “government” point of view than there is a unitary “business” point of view.

  4. Kent Larsen says:

    Nate, it might be good if you put this criticism in context of the current members of the court. Is the background of any other justice similar? Or does any other justice have a similar view of business?

  5. Nate Oman says:

    I actually find it troubling that there is so little evidence of experience or interest in business by the current members of the court, including those who are on the conservative wing of the court. I am not talking about being pro- or anti- business. I am talking about having interest in or or understanding of business.

  6. Bryan Gividen says:

    I agree with the sentiment, but if we expand that to other fields, wouldn’t it be impossible to be a Supreme Court justice? Couldn’t the the Court’s lack of understanding of environmental science, lack of military experience, or lack of NPO interest all be areas that would be cause for concern? It seems like we would have to either appoint justices based on “expertise area” or just be content that our justices won’t have an interest or understanding of all the topics before them.

    Am I understanding the complaint correctly?