Posted on 05/04/2007 5:29:06 PM PDT by new yorker 77
FAIRBANKS, Alaska – The number of cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court is declining in part because of the lack of significant legislation coming out of Congress, Chief Justice John Roberts said Thursday night at the Alaska Bar Association's annual convention. “No one actually knows why the number of cases we are taking is declining,” said Roberts, who was the keynote speaker at the association's banquet. “I think there really are three significant reasons. The first is the lack of any major legislation coming out of Congress in the last couple of decades.”
Roberts also suggested the lower courts are interpreting statutes in a more uniform manner, meaning the Supreme Court has fewer disputes to sort out.
The third reason for the decline, he said, is that circuit courts can locate previous legal decisions online in cases where they might have once turned to the Supreme Court for guidance.
“Looking back at the term as a whole, I think it's fair to say there is a higher percentage of significant cases than usual, even though the actual number of cases that we take is declining,” he said.
About 400 lawyers attended the banquet, held at the Friends Community Church in Fairbanks. The crowd included judges and lawyers from all over the state, some of whom practice in remote communities, such as Bethel and Nome, that are hundreds of miles off the road system. The vast majority came from Anchorage, the state's largest city, an hour's flight south of Fairbanks.
The chief justice's visit attracted a group of about 15 protesters. They gathered at a busy intersection near the University of Alaska Fairbanks to rally against last month's Supreme Court decision that banned partial-birth abortion nationwide. Roberts voted with the majority in a 5-4 decision.
“We're here to let him know that women don't need the government to protect them from their own medical decisions,” said Barbara McDaniel, President of the Matanuska-Susitna chapter of the National Organization for Women.
In his remarks, Roberts made almost no reference to the several cases he litigated for the state of Alaska while in private practice at Hogan & Hartson, one of Washington's premier law firms. Two of Roberts' 39 arguments before the Supreme Court were made on behalf of the state.
The first came in 1997 when former Alaska attorney general Bruce Botelho hired Roberts in a complex and high-profile Indian law case against the Alaska Native village of Venetie.
Roberts helped win a unanimous decision from the Supreme Court that ultimately blocked Alaska Native villages from attaining a greater degree of sovereign powers in areas such as taxation, land use and law enforcement.
The case had been tied up in the federal courts for nearly 18 years before Roberts came on board, said Botelho, who is now mayor of Juneau.
“Working with him was a great learning experience for our lawyers,” Botelho said. His decision to hire Roberts, he said, “was probably one of my best as attorney general.”
Roberts also successfully argued that Alaska's online sex offender registry did not violate the rights of convicted offenders. The 2003 decision was the Supreme Court's first review of Megan's laws, named for a New Jersey girl who was raped and killed by a convicted sex offender living in her neighborhood.
He also worked on case in which the Environmental Protection Agency challenged the state's decision to grant a permit to the Red Dog Mine, the world's largest zinc mine. The court ruled against the state in that case.
Roberts advised the state in its attempt to wrest control of southeast Alaska's waterways from the federal government, but did not argue the case before the court.
The night ended with Roberts receiving gifts. The staff of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, presented him with a walrus figurine carved from soapstone. The bar association gave him a basket of woven rye grass from a Yupik Eskimo artist.
Find this article at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070504-0318-wst-chiefjustice-alaska.html
A part time Federal legislature would be a good thing. Maybe we allow them 8-10 weeks a year and then bye bye!
Ssshhhh...
I second that.
That’s the way it used to be, part timers. I’m not really sure when it became their “job” and full time screwing up of this country?
I’ve always thought that for every law that these CONGRESSCRITTERS pass, they should be required to take one off the books.
Works great in Texas...and we only pay them $7,200 per year plus $128 per diem while in session (140 calander days in odd-numbered years). We pay the people that clean the bathrooms in the Capital more...LONG LIVE THE GRANGE!!!!
The U.S. Capitol and congressional office buildings had air conditioning installed in the 1930s. That was right at the time of the New Deal and the expansion of government under FDR. Some think that because of air conditioning, Congress was better able to be in session year-round.
Nevada too.
Did they get the per diem when they were hiding in Arizona?
I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was taken from them, we also had to suspend a state law that prevented Legislator from being arrested during session because the Gov. was going to send the Law to get 'em....but then one caved (or came to his senses) and the hiding was over.
that is still a really sore subject here, this is Texas, we "Remember the Alamo, not hide in New Mexico".
That was Washington Liberals influencing Texas Democrats and we don't take too kindly to that here. Even if you know you are going to lose a fight you stay and battle if you believe you are right. There was noth'n Texan about running and they are going to pay a price for that for a loooooooong time.
Don't forget to radically cut their pay so to prevent attracting flunkies like my congressman.
The Dems are too busy playing politics to do anything useful, like performing their jobs. Is that a bad thing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.