The US Supreme Court opens its 2012-2013 term Monday with Justice Anthony Kennedy again the likely swing vote. But given his vote on the Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice John Roberts may not be predictably conservative either.
Workers cover the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington with a protective scrim, as work continues on the facade. The Supreme Court is embarking on a new term beginning Monday that could be as consequential as the last one with the prospect for major rulings about affirmative action, gay marriage, and voting rights.
Alex Brandon/AP
EnlargeThe US Supreme Court begins its 2012-2013 term on Monday with a blunt question: Which version of Chief Justice John Roberts will show up at the high court this year?
Skip to next paragraph' +
google_ads[0].line2 + '
' +
google_ads[0].line3 + '
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Will it be the hard-charging conservative who struck down election-season speech restrictions on corporations in the 2010 Citizens United decision, and who invalidated racial preferences in public schools in Seattle and Louisville in 2007?
Or will it be the circumspect judicial minimalist who guided the high court away from overturning a major provision of the Voting Rights Act in a 2009 Texas case, and who last June voted with the court?s liberal wing to prevent the election-year invalidation of President Obama?s health care reform law?
The chief justice is expected to have ample opportunity in the new term to become reacquainted with his conservative colleagues in potential blockbuster cases involving affirmative action, voting rights, and gay marriage.
The question is, will he?
How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.
Legal analysts suggest Chief Justice Roberts has earned a degree of good will from would-be liberal critics in the wake of his surprising vote to uphold the health care law. Some scholars praised the chief justice?s acrobatic decision as a modern-day version of Marbury v. Madison.
Conservatives scoff at such suggestions. They say Roberts appears to have caved in to bullying and threats from President Obama and others who launched what they say was a sustained campaign of intimidation once it looked like the court was poised to overturn the health care mandate.
?Whatever explanation [exists] is not legitimate because we all agree that it is not a good thing for justices ? chief justices ? or judges to act politically, to try to split the differences, to try to balance competing imperatives,? Washington Lawyer David Rivkin said during a recent panel discussion at the libertarian Cato Institute.
Mr. Rivkin, who served as a lawyer challenging the health care law, said a similar ?campaign of intimidation? would likely arise in future high-stakes cases.
The court?s docket suggests it may not be a long wait.
On October 10, the Supreme Court is set to examine the constitutionality of racial preferences in college admissions at the University of Texas.
In addition, the high court is expected to soon consider whether to take up appeals involving California?s Proposition-8 ban on same-sex marriages and whether the Defense of Marriage Acts? prohibition on same-sex spouses collecting federal benefits violates the Constitution?s guarantee of equal treatment.
mountain lion hanley ramirez Christian Bale visits victims Perez Hilton national weather service kristen stewart Christian Bale
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.