ReviewJournal.com - Opinion - EDITORIAL: The high court is now in session

PRINT THIS Popular

Oct. 01, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: The high court is now in session

Capital punishment, Voter ID, terror suspects head the docket

Today is the first Monday in October -- meaning the U.S. Supreme Court is back in session.

At this point, though, there's little on the docket that would drastically alter the landscape for most Americans in terms of property rights, free speech or other issues involving individual liberty and freedom.

Share & Save

What is this?

Most Popular Stories

EDITORIAL: Public employee pay

FROM OUR READERS: Do those who voted for Halverson have a clue?

LETTERS: No more cuts to public schools

EDITORIAL: Another drug raid gone bad

LETTERS: Classic case of burying the news

LETTERS: Public school cuts political, impractical

EDITORIAL: 'Buyers in these areas are responding ... '

EDITORIAL: Rich man, poor man

FROM OUR READERS: No tax hikes? It might be time to sue

EDITORIAL: School choice

But that could change if the court agrees to hear a challenge to a case striking down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

In the meantime, the major issue for many court watchers over the coming months will be whether Justice Anthony Kennedy continues his wishy-washy migration to the left, giving the liberal wing of the court the fifth vote it needs for a majority.

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.

Leave Your Comment	5 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: oldlawdawg wrote on October 01, 2007 06:29 PM: A "militia" is generally comprised of citizens bearing their own arms. Notice the phrase "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" as opposed to "the right of a militia...." The Second Amendment is Second because it assures the ability of The People to protect the most sacrosanct rights for which the revolution was fought, which are embodied by the First Amendment, i.e., religion, speach, assembly, the press, etc., (second comes after first, get it?). Indeed, the Bill of Rights is set forth in a particular order for a particular reason, and must be read that way. If the citizens are not free to bear arms, they can never assure a "FREE State" wherein The People can assemble and sopeak freely against their government, and there can never be another revolution to aassure the continuance of "a free State" as the existing tyranical government can alwasy silence opposition. Revolution is very implicit in the Constitution in the event the government ever goes arey of the Constitution such that the means of peaceful transferrance of power set forth in the Constitution will no longer assure the "security of a FREE State" referrenced in the Second Amendment. Thus, I'll keep my guns, thank you very much. What is so hard to understand about any of this...? Beytovin wrote on October 01, 2007 02:15 PM: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Still sounds like plain english to me. John wrote on October 01, 2007 12:30 PM: Timinator, What exactly is a God given right? Is it a God given right to own a machine gun? The second amendment prohibits the infringement of gun ownership in connection with the maintenance of a "well regulated militia." Therefore the positon that private gun ownership cannot be made illegal is wrong and contrary to the plain wording of the second amendment. I believe that gun ownership by private citizens should be legal. However, the appropriate reading of constitution does not prohibit the federal or state government from making gun ownership illegal. At a minimum, government has the duty to protect the entire citizenry from guns being owned by those who should not own guns such as people with violent histories or criminal records. Unlimited gun ownership without any regulation or restriction is the recipe for greater violence in our community. oldlawdawg wrote on October 01, 2007 11:46 AM: I disagree with your analysis as the Court's docket. Voter ID is of potentially huge importance to the Nation, as will be the scope and language of the Court's ruling. This is a bellwhether case that implicates not only traditional voter's rights, but also issues of illegal immigration and the availability of forged documentation which has the IRS and Social Security systems, as well as Medicare and similar state agancies, tied up in knots. The Court is in deep political and practical waters on this one, and while the outcome may appear certain, the rationale employed by the Court could be abused by all manner of litigants in the future unless the Court keeps its ruling and rationale as narrow as possible. The issue of downward departures from mandatory sentencing guidelines is also more important than you seem to think as the Court's prior rulings actually require the Court to either scrap the mandatory guidelines altogether or hand down an opinion that makes the departure scheme both fair and in harmony with the guidelines themselves, a trickier task than you seem to suggest. The child porn case is HUGE -- can the government now punish us for expressing our thoughts and nothing more? When has thinking about a crime, without any acts in futherance thereof, ever been a crime? I realize this is an editorial/opinion piece, but you are far too glib and cavalier to be taken as a serious court-watcher. You don't need a law degree to have an opinion about the Court, but it would be nice if you demonstrated a true understanding of the Court and the issues before it not only for what they are at face value, but for what they could well mean in light of existing precident and political currents. timinator wrote on October 01, 2007 10:48 AM: OK class, repeat after me: The 2nd Amendment, indeed, all of the original ten amendments, do not "give" rights to anyone, they are limitations placed on federal power, and a reaffirmation and guarantee of natural, individual, God-given rights. Government, in any form, cannot legitimately abrogate those rights; it would be usurpation and tyranny.