In a lesser known, but still important case [Lingle v. Chevron], the Supreme Court handed down a "takings" decision that clarified that an early opinion was not meant to give judges a broad power to determine the reasonableness of property regulations. As one account noted, like Gilda Radner, the courts said "never mind." The case is discussed in this Washington Post piece.
The decision was unanimous with Justice Kennedy briefly noting in a concurring opinion that there might be some extreme cases when a regulation is so unreasonable as to be unconstitutional. The decision was a blow to certain "property rights" theorists (also on the look out for an upcoming Takings case, Kelo) and those who used a vaguely open-ended throwaway line in an 1980s opinion with some success to strike down various property regulations.
And, it helps underline the importance of the judicial battles of today. The accounts, including yesterday's NYT, honoring the "compromise" and focusing on partisan battles tend to miss part of the point. These nominations are so much of a struggle because they are clearly ideological battles ... part of a continual attempt to put ideological friendlies to various conservative/libertarian interest groups on the bench.
For instance, Austin talked about Judge Owens' penchant toward corporation friendly rulings, even if she had to re-litigate the facts (something appellate courts generally do not do) to do so. Also, Judge Rogers-Brown is a strong property rights advocate, talking about property regulations being "theft." When she is said to be outside the "mainstream," Lingle suggests why -- even the likes of Scalia and Thomas are not as strong in their thinking.
There is a tendency to stereotype ideological battles as just about abortion and other social issues, but these other matters are quite important as well. This is so especially because social and business conservatives both are major, if competing, wings of those now in power.
Some might support this change in court membership and disagree with the sentiments of the below account. So be it ... but an honest account of the battles should underline what is at stake. Not just the changing of the rules in midstream (calls to mind the "clean hands" rule ... no equitable compensation if you don't have clean hands), but the ideological issues at stake.
This talk about "democracy" and "qualified" nominations treated unfairly tells but part of the story. "Democracy" (well, ideally) requires a full-informed electorate, right?