More and more Americans have noticed the Roberts Court's habit of twisting the law  in order to benefit powerful corporations over the rights of individuals. As recently as a year ago, the national dialogue on the Court rarely touched on this issue. But last January's Citizens United decision was so outrageous that it made people see both the Court's previous decisions and its current work through a new lens. Evolving press coverage reflects the changing paradigm in how Americans view the Supreme Court.
For instance, earlier this week, the Supreme Court announced that it had agreed to hear a case of sex discrimination  against Wal-Mart and a separate case involving global climate change . Press coverage recognized the common factor in the Court's decisions to hear these very different and unrelated cases.
The Los Angeles Times  wrote:
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear two major appeals from corporate America that seek to block mass lawsuits, one involving a huge sex bias claim against Walmart and the other a massive environmental suit that seeks to hold coal-fired power plants liable for causing global warming.
In both cases, the justices agreed to consider stopping these suits before they can move toward a trial.
Monday's move is only the latest sign that the Roberts Court is inclined to rein in big-money lawsuits against business. The conservative justices have been particularly skeptical of sprawling suits that could run on for years and lead to enormous verdicts.
Under a headline reading "Two Supreme Court Cases to Test Corporate Interests," the Washington Post  reported:
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear two major challenges brought by corporate interests, ...
In both cases, corporations are challenging decisions by federal appeals courts that the suits can go forward. They come before a court that traditionally has been sympathetic to business interests, but is sensitive about recent criticism from the left that it favors corporations over consumer and environmental groups.
Time  wrote:
Two federal courts have ruled that their suit can proceed as a class action on behalf of between 500,000 and 1.5 million women, but on Monday the Supreme Court announced it would review that decision. It looks suspiciously like another case in which the court's conservative majority will twist a procedural rule to prevent victims of discrimination from getting a fair chance at justice
As Jeffrey Toobin  observed in the New Yorker this week:
This is the rule in the current Supreme Court. If there is a human being on one side of the "v." and a corporation on the other, the corporation wins.
The Roberts Court is learning that if you look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck for long enough, people will eventually realize that you are, indeed, a duck.