Posted on 09/30/2007 8:16:34 PM PDT by neverdem
After a bruising term that featured more close decisions and ideological splits than in its recent history, the Supreme Court begins its new term today with more of the same: emotional, complex and sometimes partisan issues that divide the justices as well as the nation.
The court's high-profile agenda features a fourth examination of how the Bush administration and Congress deal with terrorism detainees, a separation-of-powers case that tests the limits of a president's power, and a host of discrimination and employment law cases. Last week, justices added the constitutionality of lethal injection to the list and said they would, in the midst of the 2008 presidential election, decide a fiercely partisan battle on voting rights.
Waiting in the wings from the District of Columbia is a potential showdown on the meaning of the Second Amendment and gun rights.
"The court is showing a willingness to keep on taking these kinds of issues even though they are going to be divisive," said Richard W. Garnett, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and former clerk to the late chief justice William H. Rehnquist.
But if there is a difference this year, it could be that the court -- balanced with four reliable conservatives, four reliable liberals and one man in the middle with an outsized influence -- might teeter occasionally more to the left.
That is because Justice...
--snip--
"The leading cases will be ones in which the more liberal position is distinctly -- even profoundly -- unpopular with conservatives," Goldstein wrote. "Even if the left ultimately does not win all of the five most significant cases of this Supreme Court term, that wing of the court will carry the banner for accused terrorists, crack dealers, child pornographers, child rapists, and those who want to forbid gun possession."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: "Surely a most familiar meaning [of 'carries a firearm'] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ('keepand bear Arms') and Black's Law Dictionary . . . indicate: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for"bear Arms."
A year is a long time for an aging liberal chump like Stevens to hang on. May he bless us all with his departure while Bush is still President.
We would already have that elusive 5th judge if Bush Sr. wasn't such an idiot and nominate Souter who didn't have a paper trail to check on.
The pres could recess appoint, hoping for a Pubbie win in the next election.
If we don't have both the Senate and the Presidency, then don't expect a conservative Supremie to win nomination. It won't happen.
The Senate is now polarized on this issue in a way that it was not when Scalia was appointed.
While we’re at let’s go for both!
Hey, works for me!!!
He has to do it soon. Bush isn’t getting a nomination through in 2008.
Thomas was appointed during a Democratic Senate. Roberts would have gotten through a Democratic Senate.
It only matters if Leahy or Reid simply decides not to give the guy a hearing or a vote at all. I don’t think they take that step in 2007...otherwise, Hillary can’t make any nominations in 2011.
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.