The First Monday in October

I told my staff that anyone who knew the significance of today would win a prize. The responses I got ranged from anniversary guesses to birthdays but no one realized it was the opening session of the US Supreme Court. I always dreamed of being present at the opening session but their schedule and mine seemed to always be in conflict.

Listening to a discussion on court tv today an expert of sorts was asked whether they thought cameras in the court room would ever become a reality. The expert said as one may have thought the jurists are loath to have their sessions turned into a media event. Of the three branches of government, a distinction many of us forget, the court is the least public friendly, and with good reason. They do not owe their position to the voting public, so they do not play to them the way the other branches need to do. Their jobs are for life, a fact which I have always thought was a bad idea. One commentator suggested that the congress was considering passing a law which would force the court to open its doors to the media; an idea which can quickly be countered by the court who can rule it unconstitutional!

The justices are set to tackle an array of big issues. They include the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees, the constitutionality of lethal injections for executions, photo identification cards for voters and investors' struggle to find accountability in cases of fraud. The court could add a blockbuster case to its calendar if the justices opt to take a Second Amendment case from Washington, D.C., that would test limits on the right to own guns.
In their first week, the justices will hear arguments involving the disparate prison terms given people convicted of crimes involving crack versus powder cocaine.

At the end of the month, the government will ask the justices to overturn an appeals court ruling that struck down a provision of the main federal law against child pornography. The lower court said the portion in question criminalizes merely talking about illegal images.

Another closely watched case is a challenge to Kentucky's lethal injection procedures. The court blocked a Texas inmate's lethal injection execution last week, indicating that the Kentucky case could produce a broad statement about a widely used method of execution.

The court also will wade into electoral politics in a few cases. The most notable involves the requirement that voters produce photo identification to cast a ballot.

The issue has a sharp partisan edge. Republicans are pushing voter ID laws as a way to reduce fraud. Democrats say those laws are intended to discourage poor, minority and older voters who tend to vote for Democrats. The case almost certainly will be decided before next year's general election.

There is no indication that any justice intends to step down before the 2008 presidential election, although there is much speculation that the next president could have several vacancies to fill. Let's hope the next president chooses to add more estrogen to the court and bring with it some younger blood. Considering women represent 51% of the population it would be nice to see that percentage reflected in the judicial branch for a change. May I remind both sides of the aisle that there are qualified women representing all political viewpoints and it is time they break through the second branches glass ceiling. More over Pelosi you may be dealing with a female majority in the court if the stars align correctly this November. We can only hope.