During his opening statement at his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts told the Senators that his job was to be an umpire:
Judges are like umpires. … The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. … And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes …
But John Roberts has proven to be a very biased umpire.
Think Progress points to a recent report that the Roberts Court has a strong bias in favor of corporations. The NYTs reports that the Roberts Court rules in favor of Corporations over 61% of the time (a 15% gain over the record of the Rehnquist Court in similar cases). And another study finds that Justices in the Roberts Court are biased in favor of Corporations when compared to Justices of the recent past.
Justice under John Roberts is a two-tiered system. As the charts and graphs over at Think Progress and other recent reporting makes clear it is a rigged game. Workers, the middle class, individual liberty and justice take a back seat to the wants of Corporations as the Roberts Court uses one set of standards for their Galtian Overlords and another for everybody else.
To simplify these studies, I thought it might be useful to create a guide to the different Strike Zones that John Roberts uses to call balls and strikes:
BGinCHI
I don’t see why they can’t get a computer to do the Supremes’ job.
MikeJ
Be glad Bush didn’t appoint Eddie Gaedel.
trollhattan
That’s a sweet graphic.
“Bidniz is people too.”
JR
Umpires don’t pick teams, and they don’t set lineups. Supreme Court Justices, on the other hand, pick which contests they wish to see and define the parameters and stakes of each match. Stupid analogy.
Brachiator
@BGinCHI:
If Watson, the Jeopardy Computer, has a bias in favor of corporations, then we are all screwed.
Dennis G.
@JR:
I always thought the “Umpire thing” was a stupid analogy as well, but I recall folks falling over themselves to praise Roberts when he said it.
John Roberts is the worst Chief Justice since Roger B. Taney and I suspect that he’ll bump Taney up a notch before he is off the Court.
Cheers
Ming
Fuck. I remember Senator Obama explaining his opposition to Roberts’ appointment — he totally called this.
Triassic Sands
Only 61% of the time? I’m shocked the percentage is so small.
@BGinCHI:
Who gets to program the computer — John Roberts?
jwb
@Dennis G.: How much of this is due to Roberts and how much due to the changed membership of the court? I haven’t checked out your links, but your post doesn’t really provide any evidence that Roberts is solely (or even primarily) responsible for the shift.
BGinCHI
@Triassic Sands: Obviously I do. Cole can’t even negotiate stairs.
nicteis
Um, the graphic is backwards. It indicates nearly every pitch to individuals is a ball, and for them it’s an easy walk to first; nearly every pitch to corporations is a strike and there is no joy in corporationville unless they manage to hit wild pitches over their heads and below their knees.
If we want to debunk the myth that progressives are a bunch of unamerican pointy-heads, could we try not to create the impression that we don’t understand the first thing about the all-American pastime?
MikeJ
@nicteis: No, the plaintiff is pitching.
Steeplejack
@BGinCHI:
(OT) Were you able to catch Montalbano last night?
Social outcast
Roberts is concerned by individual rights, but they are the individual rights of a very narrow band of individuals: corporate leaders. The same ones who are constantly stripping out the profits of corporations and handing them all to themselves, leaving little for workers or shareholders (many of whom are the same due to workers stakes in pension funds and 401K programs). So it’s less about organizations than it is about protecting the interests of his friends.
BGinCHI
@Steeplejack: I didn’t see it anywhere in the listings. That was frustrating, and I’m not sure what’s going on.
Will check again when I get time (work has been crazy).
burnspbesq
This analysis is utter, unreconstructed bullshit. I am no fan of this Court, but at least try to come up with a reasoned critique.
Steeplejack
@BGinCHI:
It won’t show up as Montalbano, it will show up as International Mystery, the omnibus series of which it is a part. On again at 9:00 p.m. and midnight EDT Tuesday. (WYCC, according to Wikipedia.)
Leaving stalker mode after this.
Jrod the Cookie Thief
@burnspbesq: Yeah Dennis! Your cartoon playing off of a famous quote from Justice Roberts, based off of information gathered from four separate news stories and studies, is not nearly reasoned enough for our sniff refined palate.
Yo burns, how about you take your own fucking advice and come up with a critique more reasonable than yelling bullshit. Explain to us little people how the New York Times is wrong here. Explain to us peons why the CAC’s report is wrong, oh noble esquire.
Pancake
Well, at least this post is totally unsurprising in its adherence to the prescribed talking points that the crazy-ass Left have been pushing over recent months. As to substance, not so much there.
DougW
The Roberts court is bought and sold to big business. Anyone who can’t see this, is blind.
Corner Stone
@Pancake:
Hey, you and burnspbesq agree! Common ground at last.
Oh, wait…
Evolved Deep Southerner
@efgoldman round and fat: That dumb fucker isn’t new. Are you Ricky?
BGinCHI
@Steeplejack: OK, will check it out. Thanks again.
JRon
excellent graphic. am posting it now.
Roberts and Alito were Bush’s lasting achievement of shifting the court to the right after decades of talking about it. Sadly enough, this is one thing he actually accomplished.
redoubt
I love that you used Stan Musial to represent the batter.
themann1086
@Dennis G.: I said as much back when I actually blogged in 2005. Good times.
Howlin Wolfe
@JR: Well, Roberts was the one who chose the analogy. Are you saying Dennis G is stupid for taking it further, or are you criticizing Roberts? Either way, you don’t offer any other analysis for why the rulings are skewed in favor of corporations.
Howlin Wolfe
@nicteis: Not if you think of the pitcher as the appellant/petitioner.
Howlin Wolfe
@burnspbesq: Why don’t you come up with a better analysis? Or at least offer a reason why you think so.
Citizen_X
@Howlin Wolfe: Yes, and I’ll take the analogy even further: according to Roberts’ record, a corporation has every right to bean you smack in the noggin–and you still get a strike called against you.
Gus
Shit, Ted Williams would have hit .600 with the Blue strike zone.
Paul in KY
@burnspbesq: If you see the plaintiff as the pitcher & the ‘strike zone’ being the pitcher getting the Supremes to rule his/her way, then I think it is a very nice graphic. Non lawyers can easily understand it & it visually shows the differences when the ‘pitcher’ is a corporation as opposed to a little ole human being.