A little nitpicky, but number of cases is a terrible metric/proxy for the affect that a court decision will have on people's lives.

I am of the opinion that the economic decisions have more effect on the majority of people. However, the social desicions affect a smaller number of people in more profound ways, and balancing the import of those is an age old philosophical question.
On the politics, however, you are exactly right.

The activists are probably most impassioned about the more contentious issues that split the electorate, but issues that split the electorate are not the ones we should be highlighting when the other party holds all three branches of government. We obviously need to make their supports at least slightly uncomfortable.

It is hard to predict, but it appears that Roberts' confirmation will probably go through, and the hearings should be used to lay a foundation for the principles that we may be able to fight on in the future. Your points highlight this very well. I would bet that there is a significant majority of people that think our tort system is unfair or inefficient to corporations, and that the sentiment is way out of whack with the actual facts in the world -- for example, I bet most people's perception of [lawsuit payouts/lawsuits filed] is wildly off the mark.

We need to be laying the ground work in getting the American people to better understand reality in these types of cases.

Isn't this kind of a tough one, given Roberts' role in the Microsoft antitrust suit?  I'm not saying that I actually believe that answers all questions, or makes him any less corporate than he is, I'm just saying that in a sound-bite war, it's an easy answer for his team.

The other easy answer would be, hey O'Connor was a corporate shill too, and you said nominate somebody like her!

Or have I just fallen into the same trap as the rest of the country by not getting riled up by Roberts just because he isn't the Santorum type I expected Bush to nominate?  I think that's really possible.  Because, my fellow coffee guzzlers, I'm not worked up about this.  I don't know anybody who is worked up, either.  What happened?  I get so easily worked up by everything else but Roberts seems to get a pass.  Did they put something in the water?  Or in the media? 

Forgot the link.  It's here for the Polling Report.

When asked whether different groups "have/has too much or too little power and influence on Washington?", people far and away saw business as having too much power in influencing Washington decisions.




No doubt people do think that. But this largely has to do with corporate lobbying efforts to influence legislation. I don't think the courts are seen as a battleground on economic and regulatory matters. Therefore, from a political standpoint, it will be hard to generate the kind of energy needed to effectively oppose Roberts.




This kind of red-baiting shows how far elite opinion has gotten from the mainstream of American public opinion. Most Americans stopped buying the "what's good for General Motors is good for America" stuff a long time ago.




Call it red-baiting if you must, but I'm a firm believer that the instinctive hostility to business so characteristic of the left is a net political loser for Democrats. Business is too woven into the fabric of Americans' lives. Successful business people are often folk heroes. Furthermore, Americans understand that not all business is "big business".



You are assuming that because people think business has too much power in Washington, then it naturally follows that people will respond to a political message that demonizes business. I think that's nonsense. I agree people don't think that what's good for business is necessarily good for America. But they also don't believe, as you seem to, that what's good for business is never good for America.

very possible, destor23. I mean, my reaction to thw whole thing, and it's certainly been well orchestrated by Rove and the press, is sort of like the relief at having been told that a rapist-murderer will be moving in next door, and then finding out he's only a rapist.  (Yes, I'm a male, and I think that point is germane to my analogy; to wit: he's bad news, but not so bad for me.  Like Phil Ochs's old definition of the liberal?  "Ten degrees to the left of center in good times.  Ten degrees to the right of center when it affects him personally.")

How could y'all breeze right past the "coke smuggling" guy's post with out a comment, and jump right back into the minutia arguments, this is why Dem's keep loosing elections. You have to call out your own kooks. (See "How to be a Democrat when Democrats Suck")