And that means the Supreme Court is back in session! The Las Vegas Review-Journal gives a good roundup of the major cases the court will be hearing in the near future (as well as one they'll likely hear):
The most high-profile case on the court's calendar is probably one involving Guantanamo detainees. Lawyers for some of those held at the Cuban base will maintain that a U.S. law allowing the indefinite imprisonment of terror suspects should not prevent challenges in U.S. courts to their confinement.
The Bush administration argues that Guantanamo prisoners are treated fairly.
"This is the most generous set of procedures ever afforded to a nation's military adversaries in the history of the world. They are, however, far short of what would be afforded a U.S. citizen caught up in the civilian justice system," said Brad Berenson, who served under Mr. Bush in the White House counsel's office.
We see little danger, however, that terror suspects who truly threaten the United States would be released if they were allowed to avail themselves of U.S. jurisprudence.
Other major cases include:
• Voter ID: Democrats want the court to toss out state laws that require voters to identify themselves at the polls. Oh, the humanity! Maintaining the integrity of the electoral process is an important matter. The identification requirement is a minimal burden that the justices should uphold.
• Lethal injection: This will be an interesting case. Death penalty opponents maintain that this method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. OK. But is there any means of execution that would be acceptable to them? Probably not. Liberal court observers who complain about this panel's lack of respect for precedent may find themselves in a bit of a pickle, here, given justices have ruled repeatedly over the years that the death penalty itself is not inherently "cruel and unusual."
• Crack cocaine: Thanks to U.S. sentencing guidelines, sellers of crack cocaine -- who often happen to be black -- are subject to more stringent criminal penalties in the federal system than sellers of powder cocaine -- who often happen to be white. The issue before the court is whether a federal judge has the discretion to impose a more lenient sentence on those who sell crack. In fact, many of these hard and fast sentencing mandates go too far in taking away the ability of judges to analyze an individual case and act appropriately. Let's hope the justices agree.
• Government bonds: In this case out of Kentucky, the justices must decide whether a state can treat interest income from municipal bonds differently if they are from out of state rather than from in state. If the court upholds a ruling that the practice is unconstitutional it will have major implications for investors
• Child porn: Is it a crime to promote child pornography by talking about it even if you don't possess it? That's what the justices must determine in a case involving a man whose conviction was overturned after an appeals court ruled that a federal law criminalizing such activity is unconstitutional. The prohibition against actually possessing such images is not at issue.
A case not yet on the docket involves Washington, D.C.'s, strict gun ban. Many people expect the justices to soon accept the matter, in which an appeals court struck down the ban as an affront to the Second Amendment.
If so, it will likely become the most watched matter on the docket -- and present the justices with the opportunity to reaffirm that the Second Amendment gives individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms.
No comments:
Post a Comment