The Supreme Court, John Roberts and Progressive Jurisprudence

As we have noted previously, there exists a progressive vision of Supreme Court jurisprudence and legal analysis which has deep roots in the judicial philosophy of the Founders of the United States and some of our most eminent jurists. As reported by Dana Milbank in the February 28, 2008 edition of the Washington Post, such a view does not comport with the framework of analysis Chief Justice John Roberts reveals here:

Chief Justice John Roberts was pained.

Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company -- but that's not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.

The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."