Step-by-step explanation:
Howard Zinn, a historian and political scientist, believed that the Supreme Court was incapable of being fair and preventing corporate manipulation of the economy due to its close relationship with the ruling elite and its conservative ideology. He argued that the Supreme Court's decisions consistently favored the wealthy and powerful over the poor and oppressed.
Zinn believed that the Supreme Court was controlled by a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations who used their power and influence to shape the Court's decisions in their favor. He saw this as part of a larger trend in American society, where the wealthy controlled the government and the economy, leaving the majority of people marginalized and powerless.
Zinn's perspective is reflected in his book "A People's History of the United States," where he argues that the Supreme Court has a long history of supporting the interests of the ruling class, often at the expense of the working class and marginalized groups. He cites several examples, such as the Court's decision in the Lochner v. New York case, which struck down a state law limiting work hours for bakers, and the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, which allowed unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns.
Other scholars, such as legal historian Morton Horwitz, have also criticized the Supreme Court for its conservative bias and pro-corporate leanings. Horwitz argues that the Court's decisions reflect the interests of the business community and conservative politicians, rather than the principles of justice and equality.
Overall, Zinn's perspective on the Supreme Court's inability to be fair and prevent corporate manipulation of the economy is grounded in his analysis of American society as a whole, and the ways in which power and privilege are distributed unequally.