Supreme Court nominee - will he be good for business?

You have got to be kidding me? This is the buzz amongst many of the financial punditry.

Are we that defunct as a nation? Does anyone understand the constitution these days? After reading and listening to many on the left and amazingly on the right, I must come to the conclusion that the answer is no.

Listen to this from Daniel Fisher writing for Forbes this morning:

"As corporate lawyers have learned to their chagrin under the generally conservative Rehnquist court, the justices farthest to the right--Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas --have refused to come to the aid of business if they can't find explicit authority in the Constitution."
from, http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2005/07/19/scotus-roberts-nominee-cz_df_0719court.html

Really? They didn't come to the aid of business? Since when are they supposed to? I thought they were duty bound to look at the constitution and go from there. If you want limitations "such as the 1996 decision limiting $2 million in punitive damages against BMW for selling a car with chipped paint" then you need to petition your congressman to limit it, NOT THE COURT!

I don't understand how educated people can make these outrageous statements. Works like this Mr. Fisher, the job of the court is to rule on law, not make law. That is the job of congress. Most any 7th grade civics class student should be able to tell you that - unless they went to public school, in which case they probably can't read well enough to even take issue with your article.

Scalia and Thomas were right in their ruling – they do not have the constitutional authority to speak on the BMW law suite. Unfortunately the congress is too cowardly to cap these idiot law suites. The problem is with congress, and with activist judges that let the congress sit on there hands and do nothing. As long as the courts continue on this route, and I am talking about leftwing and rightwing activists, “We The People” will have no voice.