Lights, (No) Camera, Action!

Supreme Court's New Term Includes Many Likely Historic Cases

(CBS)  Justice Kennedy voted for the last Congressional effort to restrict this type of abortion and if he does it again the math adds up to a 5-4 victory for anti-abortion proponents. But he may decide that there is more value and honor in upholding the Court's precedent from that 2000 decision than there is in endorsing Congress' stubborn brand of fact-finding about abortion procedures that lead the legislature to find that the aforementioned "health exception" was not medically necessary.

Justice Kennedy already is the bane of the right for his rulings last term and his penchant for citing (but not necessarily relying upon) foreign law. Just imagine the grief he'll get if he again stymies his fellow Republicans.

Because O'Connor also provided the critical swing vote in 2003 to uphold affirmative action, Justice Alito's votes this term in two successor cases will be crucial in determining the fate of admissions policies in two school districts thousands of miles apart—and also shaping the future, if any, of affirmative action policies.

Few who saw or heard Justice Alito's Supreme Court confirmation hearing in January believe he supports affirmative action even when - as in the case of school districts in Washington state and Kentucky - race is considered a factor, but the not the only factor, in admissions decisions. And few believe that Justice Kennedy will be willing to do anything about that.

Speaking of decisions, the Court this term will hear at least two cases designed - lawyers and judges everywhere hope - to clear up the mass confusion that currently reigns over federal sentencing.

In Burton v. Waddington, the Justices will decide whether to apply retroactively its landmark 2004 ruling that required federal jurors to find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increased a defendant's sentence. The court also will determine the fact of California's sentencing guidelines and, in so doing, probably expound a little bit on its ruling a few years ago that made the federal sentencing guidelines less than mandatory.

I saved the best for last. The court will enter the debate over global warming via a case that has enormous ramifications not just for us but also for our grandchildren and beyond. It's not just the Bush Administration's environmental policies that will be tested via Massachusetts v. EPA, it's the White House's approach to science, generally, that will come under scrutiny.

The Administration, remember, still is reluctant to accept the idea that there is a scientific consensus that we are causing global warming by the emissions we generate—and that we had better do something about it before it is too late. A Supreme Court ruling that forces the Administration's hand here could be, as the global warming experts like to say, a "tipping point."

What else? Well, the Justices this term will hear cases involving the following federal statutes: the Organic Act of Guam, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Armed Career Criminal Act, the Federal Impact Aid Act, the National Bank Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Westfall Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, to name a few.

There will be a quiz during the last week of June, and by then we should know what the ratings are like for this Season of Star Cases! at the highest court in the land.

[jenmoser1982]

Well this is what Americans wanted, we knew Bush was conservative when we put him in office. Why all the beatings on the Justices? The cases haven't been decided, and I believe they are educated enough to base their decisions not on judicial activism (although I believe Sandra Day O'Connor was, since she was a member of NOW and had many other conflicts of interest). I believe this new court is better balanced and will make decisions according to facts, rather than what your group affiliations are telling you to do.