From the Department of No S***, Sherlock.
Here's a bit of detail:
In the 1950s, justices appointed by both parties sided with wealthy interests about 45% of the time. By 2022, Republican appointees voted for the wealthier party 70% of the time.
Democratic appointees? 35%.
....
The researchers argue this isn't about isolated cases or shifting legal doctrine. They say it's more a systemic matter, meaning a pattern that plays out fairly predictably across disputes that involve workers versus management, consumers versus corporations, and regulators versus industry.
The study arrives as public trust in the court hits multidecade lows and scrutiny intensifies over decisions that have weakened unions, expanded the role of money in politics, and narrowed or limited federal regulatory power.
Supporters say the research confirms what many have long suspected — that the legal system favors those with greater economic power, or “big guys” over “little guys,” colloquially speaking. Critics, for their part, counter that defining "rich" versus "poor" involves making subjective judgments, and the data may merely reflect a more consistently conservative court rather than an explicit pro-wealth bias.
For corporations and large businesses, the benefits are straightforward. In a scenario in which a majority-conservative court can be reliably expected to side with wealthy interests—that is, the current scenario, which will only be changed by justices’ deaths or retirements — legal costs can be modeled more reliably, and outcomes predicted with greater confidence.
....