Unequal Punishment Rules for Corporations and the Poor
Nathan Newman examines yesterday's Supreme Court ruling limiting punitive damages and its recent ruling upholding three strikes laws, and concludes that pro-corporate bias is what really lies behind the Court's "judicial restraint" policy.
So it's unreasonable to significantly decrease shareholder profits for an insurance company that commits fraud, but it's "reasonable and proportionate" to essentially obliterate a life of someone stealing $153 worth of goods?Update: Sam Heldman at Ignatz is livid over the opinion for the same reasons. Calpundit agrees.My general legal position is pretty much one of judicial restraint-- it's up to the political branches to define the limits of punishment, not the courts who have no greater philosophical wisdom than those enacting either fraud or criminal statutes.
But this kind of contrasting justice for corporations versus the poor in our rightwing-dominated courts just shows the pro-corporate bias that really lies behind all the "judicial restraint" rhetoric from so much of the conservative side.
| < Baghdad TV Goes Off Air | Reporters' Organization Calls for Inquiry into Deaths > |