A Bloomberg Businessweek article that highlights recent setbacks for trial lawyers arguing cases in the U.S. Supreme Court includes the following observation:
Some trial lawyers are resigned that the odds will remain against them in the nation’s highest court. Some of the justices have a “visceral reaction” against suits that aim for a nationwide impact, says F. Paul Bland Jr. of Public Justice, a Washington group that presses civil rights, environmental, and consumer suits. “They think lawsuits should be narrow things about small disputes, but shouldn’t be used in a way that affects broader outcomes,” he says.
Policy should be left to the elected branches? Judges and justices should stick to interpreting disputes about laws made by the legislative branch and carried out by the executive branch? What a concept. That’s almost as incredible as looking for the original meaning of the Constitution when making a judicial ruling.
