I’m sure the fact that the Supremes just split 5-4 in favor of big business yet again is not indicative of right-wing hackery, but a decision solely based on originalism and precedent:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that pharmaceutical companies do not have to pay overtime to their representatives who visit doctors’ offices to promote their products, a dispute that had threatened the industry with billions of dollars in potential liability.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court handed a defeat to two former sales representatives for a unit of Britain’s GlaxoSmithKline Plc. They had appealed a U.S. appeals court in California ruling that they were “outside sales” personnel exempt from federal overtime pay requirements.
That decision conflicted with an earlier ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that pharmaceutical sales representatives qualified for overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) trade group has told the Supreme Court that classifying sales representatives as eligible for overtime could expose the industry to billions of dollars in potential costs.
“PhRMA strongly supports the Supreme Court’s decision,” the trade group said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s opinion is consistent with the arguments advanced in our amicus brief and with the longstanding sales practices of our member companies.”
The only reason you would think the Roberts court is going to reflexively rule for big business every chance they get is because you are a naive rube who does not understand the law.
*** Update ***
To observers of the ‘Obamacare’ oral arguments, it would come as no surprise that Justice Antonin Scalia is a likely vote to strike it down. But there has remained one major wrinkle in his prior jurisprudence that continues to give hope to a handful of the health care law’s proponents that he’ll vote to uphold it.
Now, within days of the historic ruling, Scalia is releasing a new book in which he finds fault with a Roosevelt-era Supreme Court decision that forms a critical part of the legal undergirding for the health care reform law. For Scalia, that’s a dramatic turnaround, because he has previously embraced the premise of that decision in an opinion he authored in 2005 that supporters of the Affordable Care Act have frequently cited.
Llet’s keep in mind, though, that you all are not trained lawyers, and as such, are simply out of line/ignorant/talking out your ass/uninformed when you claim these guys are nothing but right wing hacks.