On the Supremes Docket

The Supreme Court has announced the cases that it will review and, sometimes more illuminating, those it won’t review. To make things even more interesting, there are a few cases that have neither been rejected nor accepted. They’re sort of sitting on the fence I guess and may, or may not, be decided this session.

The interesting cases that have been accepted include:

Boumediene v. Bush – This is one of two Gitmo detainee cases that the Supremes will address together. Basically the question is whether the Gitmo detainees are under the protection of the U.S. Constitution. The Bush administration says that because they’re foreign enemy combatants held outside the U.S., they aren’t.

I say if we’re not prepared to extend the same legal protections to our enemies that we reserve for ourselves, then how are we better than they are?

Baze v. Rees – This case challenges the lethal injection procedures in the state of Kentucky claiming that they are cruel and unusual punishment.

We know that the death penalty is arbitrary as hell and anything that arbitrary is by definition cruel and unusual.

Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita – This case challenges laws that require voters to present a valid photo ID in order to be able to cast a ballot.

So, if you don’t have a valid driver’s license or a passport you can’t vote? Where’d that rule come from?

Medellin v. Texas – This case revolves around a Mexican national on death row, but the question here is really whether or not the President can set aside a state law that conflicts with an international treaty. Bush says yes and Texas is telling its prodigal village idiot to go pound salt.

I’m not all that sure on this one, but I’m suspicious of anything that expands the power of the presidency.

Snyder v. Louisiana – Tell me if you’ve heard this one before. A black man on death row for killing his wife in Louisiana is claiming he didn’t get a fair trial because the prosecution dismissed all of the potential black jurors and compared him to O.J. Simpson.

It sounds to me like the guy got railroaded by a typical case of southern justice. Who says Jim Crow is dead?

On the fence and which may be decided are:

District of Columbia v. Heller – Washington D.C. used to have a ban on hand guns but that ban was declared in violation of the 2nd Amendment. This case asks the Supremes to review that decision.

Hmmmm, 2nd Amendment cases confuse me. I think we need to keep guns off the street but I also understand why the 2nd Amendment was written. (Note: The phrase "off the street" was a bad choice of words as this case is about having guns for home defense.)

Kennedy v. Louisiana – The question is whether someone can be executed for child rape. A Louisiana man is on death row for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter.

Hell, go ahead and stick him in the general population of the prison. The bastard won’t last 8 hours.

Two cases which the court declined to hear and therefore essentially ratified the lower court rulings were:

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Dinallo – The state of New York has a law requiring religious based social service agencies that offer prescription benefits to its employees, to include birth control prescriptions as part of that benefit.

By declining the case the Supremes have essentially declared the New York law, as well as similar laws in 22 other states, to not be a violation of freedom of religion as claimed.

Faith Center Church v. Glover – The library system in the San Francisco Bay area makes its meeting rooms available for educational or community services however they felt that allowing an Evangelical Christian group to worship there was a bit over the line. The lower court agreed that allowing religious services at the library would amount to having taxpayers subsidize religion.

Of course the Christian group can’t understand why everyone doesn’t recognize the virtue of allowing Christian religious services in the public buildings of a “Christian Nation” (*cough, cough*). As for me, I'm happy whenever religion gets reminded that this is a secular democracy.

I wonder what the framers of the Constitution would think of some of these cases?