Posted on 10/01/2010 8:11:33 AM PDT by jazusamo
The Supreme Court's upcoming term will include the most emotionally charged freedom-of-speech case in recent history along with the usual assortment of high-profile challenges focusing on hot-button issues such as immigration and prosecutorial misconduct.
But the term, which begins Monday, also is notable for what it often will not include, namely new Justice Elena Kagan.
Justice Kagan, who won confirmation this summer to replace retired Justice John Paul Stevens, has said she must step aside for about half the roughly 50 cases the court has so far agreed to hear this term. It is not uncommon for justices to have to step aside when the court hears cases with which they had some previous involvement, but Justice Kagan's unusually high number is a result of her previous job as solicitor general.
It is unclear how many more, if any, recusals Justice Kagan will have this term, or how many she will have in subsequent terms, though the number is likely to be lower in ensuing years. With such a large number of recusals, some cases could end in 4-4 ties, which means they would retain a lower court's ruling.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tried to avoid that scenario by proposing a bill this week that would allow retired Justices Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and David H. Souter to fill in for such cases.
One of this term's high-profile cases is a challenge to an Arizona immigration law enacted in 2007. Others involve prosecutorial misconduct in Louisiana, and how far protesters can go in demonstrating at funerals.
In the Arizona case, Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, a group of seemingly strange bedfellows...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Apparently Democrats are all experts on FDR, but have learned absolutely nothing from his Presidency.
Well said, they haven’t learned a darn thing.
Okay....What happens on a 4/4 decision.
excerpt:
In a result of a 4-4- tie, the ruling being appealed simply stands. The court, and the nation, certainly can live through this; we’re not staring down a constitutional crisis or anything. But it seems to us that it could lead to an unfortunate amount of wasted time and money.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/10/kagan-now-recused-from-21-pending-supreme-court-cases/
It's entirely constitutional. Whether it's a good idea is a different matter.
“But it seems to us that it could lead to an unfortunate amount of wasted time and money.”
And it seems to me all the government does is waste time and money, so why should this be any different.
Is that because their appointment is a lifetime appointment whether they’re retired or not?
It's because Congress has the complete power to determine the makeup of the Supreme Court under the Constitution. The President only gets to nominate justices. Using previous justices makes it easier since they've already been nominated and confirmed once.
Thanks, I’ve tried to look up info on a process that would cover a situation like this and haven’t been able to locate any. As you say, it looks like Congress can do as they choose.
Yes, if Justice Kennedy remains leaning to the conservative side it makes her recusals moot.
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.