The Court's reduction of punitive damages in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker is a nakedly activist decision that pulls its standard for limiting damages out of thin air, demonstrates hostility to the role of Congress, and continues a pattern of ignoring the Framers' views on the importance of civil juries. Progressives would do well to treat this decision with resounding scorn, and highlight it as a textbook example of why the Supreme Court matters.
You are here
Articles & Commentary
It will probably take government officials, developers, and the courts a while to determine exactly how far federal protection for wetlands and waters extends after the Supreme Court's decision this week in Rapanos v. United States and a companion case, Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers.
Barack Obama is just the latest person to get the history of the Constitution wrong by ignoring the Reconstruction amendments.
Is the Constitution a partisan, Republican document? GOP candidates sure seem to think so.
The last Supreme Court term--with its tide-turning decisions on abortion, race, and campaign finance--has evoked familiar feelings for liberals. Just like the Democratic electoral defeats of the 1980s, not to mention the catastrophes of 1994 and 2000, these losses have triggered despair and introspection.
The faux originalism of Justice Clarence Thomas.
It is a dirty little secret that industry dislikes federal environmental regulation more than anything -- except a patchwork of regulation at the state and local level. We learned this at the beginning of the environmental era, when industry fought the federal Clean Air Act tooth and nail until it became clear that, absent federal legislation, states were going to take matters into their own hands.