Posted on 07/02/2005 2:07:09 PM PDT by Jean S
WASHINGTON - Abortion, assisted suicide, gay rights, the death penalty. Some of the toughest issues in the land confront the Supreme Court in its new term in the fall.
A new lineup of justices — assuming the successor to influential Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is on the bench — makes the outcome of these cases more unpredictable than usual.
The high court has not had a new member since 1994, a modern-era record. That stability has made it easier to gauge what issues the court will take on and how they will be decided.
On major ones, the court frequently splits 5-4. O'Connor, a moderate put on the court by President Reagan, has been a key vote in death penalty, religion and abortion cases. Her view often became the final word.
Her retirement, announced Friday, shook up the world of Supreme Court lawyers who prepared cases with O'Connor in mind.
"She was widely viewed as the key by experienced and successful litigators. They'll have to figure some other way to win their cases," said Nelson Lund, a George Mason University law professor and former clerk to O'Connor.
O'Connor said that she will remain on the court until her successor is confirmed. Depending on President Bush's choice, there could be a lengthy fight that stretches into the fall.
If O'Connor is not able to continue serving, many major cases could leave the court split 4-4.
Also in doubt is the future of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who has cancer and could step down this summer, too. The last time there were two vacancies was 1971.
Justices already have a full lineup of cases for the nine-month term that begins the first Monday in October. The court has agreed to hear about 40 appeals, including four death penalty cases and two abortion-related cases. About 40 more appeals will be added later.
Whoever the president names to the court will immediately face cases involving the Bush administration.
In one, the court will decide if law schools may restrict military recruiters as a way of protesting the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy excluding openly gay people from military service.
Schools argue that their nondiscrimination policies apply to all recruiters that base hiring on race, gender or sexual orientation.
Justices will take up the administration's challenge to Oregon's law allowing physician-assisted suicide. In addition, there is a fight that tests freedom of religion, over a church's use of hallucinogenic tea in its religious services.
The abortion cases involve a parental notification law from New Hampshire and a long-running fight over the liability of people who protest outside clinics.
O'Connor's successor probably will be quizzed during Senate confirmation hearings about those subjects.
"I'd expect any of the nominees to duck answering," said Paul Schiff Berman, a law professor at the University of Connecticut.
Berman said that a major question is whether the new justice will be a pragmatist like O'Connor.
The 75-year-old former Arizona state senator and mother of three sons approached cases with a practical view.
"She always chose the least extreme solution, the compromise solution," Berman said. "She's kept the court very close to the American popular consensus on most issues."
Unlike the court's other conservatives, she believes that affirmative action has a place in government institutions, although limited. She believes that abortion should be legal. While she supports the death penalty, she has talked openly about concerns that it is being fairly imposed.
Among the death penalty cases in the next term is a potentially significant issue of allowing inmates to get a new chance to prove their innocence with DNA evidence.
"In many cases, Justice O'Connor's votes were to protect the rights of defendants," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the anti-capital punishment Death Penalty Information Center.
___
On the Net:
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
Place yer bets.
Everyone says that she sometimes supported one side and sometimes the other. But recently she has supported the liberals in every important case, and she has eagerly cited international law and world opinion in her decisions.
History will repeat itself. Order your case of KY now. Supplies are limited.
what are the specifics on the abortion case? is it partial birth coming before the court again?
Only someone thoroughly steeped and marinated in MSM analysis of the issues could think that the Supremes are close to normal American opinion. Why would people in the States elect people to enact laws--that so often the Supremes toss out--if they didn't want those laws?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
I do not believe we will see a conservative appointed to the bench. Someone like O'Connor will get the appointment because our Republicans are wusses and will secede to the demorats ravings. Barf.
No, she hasn't. O'Connor joined the liberals much of the time in four types of cases: abortion rights, affirmative action/discrimination, the death penalty, and separation of church & state. Otherwise, she was reliably conservative (which granted doesn't mean much if one or more of the above are your priority).
The two abortion cases currently on the docket are a parental notification law from New Hampshire and the Operation Rescue clinic protests back yet again from twenty years ago.
is it partial birth coming before the court again?
i think everyone is overstating o'connors liberalism. Truly, i view her as a Liberatarian in her decisions, choosing states rights on decisions like lopez, and opting to keep government small in the social realm. I'm sure Rep Paul has absolutely no problem with her.
Cases up for review that the new justice will get indoctrinated with.....
It is so bad for this country to have this kind of thing going on over a nominee to the USSC. A little is fine and to be expected, but if they try to pull what they did on Clarance Thomas it's going way too far.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm really not in the mood to listen to character assassination for several months.
Thanks, I'll try it.
Well if that is the case. I would reply by saying, "8 is a good number. So is 7, 6."
This is no law that says we have to have a 9 judge panel, I say that if we just wait for them retire.
I like your plan.
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.