Welcome to the fifth installment of Subrosa’s SCOTUS Interruptus, a quasi-weekly column dedicated to keeping the SuicideGirls.com community abreast (hey-o!) of the Court’s important decisions, argument schedule and whatever else is relevant for that particular week. As always, a record of the opinions published by the Court can be found on its website here.


Are you pumped!? I’m pumped. I’m fucking ecstatic! We’re only a few short weeks away from Opening fucking Day! I don’t know what you’ve been doing in your off-season, but I’ve been scouring the waiver-wire to see what free-agent pickups the Court might sign, making sure my season tickets are in order and preparing for my fantasy league draft. I’m drafting second, and I know Justice Kennedy is going off the board first, so I’m left with a choice between Justice Ginsberg and Darth Scalia. It’s a quandary.

Anyway, as I’m sure you’re all aware, the Court’s season goes from October to June. It’s kind of like the NBA, but with more biased officiating. Or the NHL without the high ratings. You get the idea. The point is, like those other sports, you’ve got to know what the storylines are gonna be going into the season before you make your picks. Who’s going to be the breakout star? Which case is going to come out of nowhere to contend for worst decision of the year? Will the prayers of millions of abortion-loving heathen liberals keep Justice Stevens alive through another term? How many new and exciting ways will Justice Thomas find to be utterly and completely wrong?

Let’s find out! Here are some big cases and issues to look out for when you’re drafting for your own Fantasy SCOTUS Leagues:

Al Odah v. United States and Boumediene v. Bush

We start with the big game that everyone’s looking forward to. The forces of good vs. the forces of evil. The lawless terrorists vs. the other lawless “terrorists”. The questions presented are simple, but raise exceptionally difficult and emotionally-charged issues of law and politics. To whit: did the Military Commissions Act of 2006 validly strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeus corpus petitions, and if not, do these folks get to use that basic right to challenge their Gitmo detention?

It’s pretty much the battle of the century. Will Bush’s legislative end-run around the habeus requirement gain traction and go for long yardage? Will the Court’s normally sturdy defense allow the other branches to take power away from the Judiciary? Will Al Odah and Boumediene ever be able to make like Orlando Hernandez and get the fuck out of Cuba?

Prediction: This Court famously has a big hard-on for the executive branch, so it wouldn’t be surprising if they allowed the Military Commissions Act to stand, especially considering their own past acknowledgement that federal court jurisdiction in these cases is limited. However, the Court has been a bit hostile towards the Bush administration on Gitmo issues in the past (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush), so we’ve got definite upset potential here. The final vote will be 5-4 either way (so bet the under), but I think I’ll take the underdogs and the points. Bush goes down in a stunner, 5-4.

Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party

It’s an interesting case that pits the First Amendment freedom of association rights of political parties against the state’s own right to set the rules of their own state-sponsored elections. And while the suit was originally brought by the Washington GOP, make no mistake: the Dems want this law struck down as well. Neither side is going to cede complete control over their party machinery without a fight.


Prediction: The vast majority of legal scholarship seems to side with the party here, and even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit sided with the Republicans. The right of private association remains pretty deeply entrenched in our constitutional jurisprudence. Emerald State Elephants get to party together and end up winning big, 7-2.


Finally, my favorite dark horse sleeper pick involves international law, rape, murder, intruge and one President George W. Bush ordering the state of Texas not to execute someone. I know, I know, I’m as shocked as you. Let’s take a look at:
Medellin v. Texas

So once again, to sum up: Texas wanted to kill someone that they had convicted for murder. Actually, it’s not just someone, but an evil illegal alien! You’d think that the Executioner-In-Chief would be all “fry his ass!”, right? Wrong! Because President Bush, citing international law (and we know how big a fan he is of international laws and treaties!), told the state of Texas that they couldn’t execute him without additional due process. The irony here is so delicious that it’s clogging my arteries just writing about it.

Prediction: The supremacy of Bush’s executive branch once again comes under scrutiny, but this time instead of being challenged by the other branches it’s coming from the states. It’s at the junction between state’s rights and executive power that this Court is often extremely tough to predict. Bush certainly has a right and duty to enforce treaties and international decision (per the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution), and I think that will win out. However, don’t be surprised to see some “liberal” justices here voting on the “conservative” side and vice-versa. Medellin lives to fight another day, wins 5-4.


OK kids. Hope that helps with your draft. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to try and analyze how our new AG will impact the Court’s win percentage. See you next time!