SCOTUS Interruptus: 07-08 Fantasy Supreme Court Season Preview!
Welcome to the fifth installment of Subrosas SCOTUS Interruptus, a quasi-weekly column dedicated to keeping the SuicideGirls.com community abreast (hey-o!) of the Courts 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!? Im pumped. Im fucking ecstatic! Were only a few short weeks away from Opening fucking Day! I dont know what youve been doing in your off-season, but Ive 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. Im drafting second, and I know Justice Kennedy is going off the board first, so Im left with a choice between Justice Ginsberg and Darth Scalia. Its a quandary.
Anyway, as Im sure youre all aware, the Courts season goes from October to June. Its 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, youve got to know what the storylines are gonna be going into the season before you make your picks. Whos 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?
Lets find out! Here are some big cases and issues to look out for when youre drafting for your own Fantasy SCOTUS Leagues:
Al Odah v. United States and Boumediene v. Bush
Al Odah v. United States and Boumediene v. Bush are the two cases filed on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo Bay now consolidated into one that are the first to challenge the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 in the courts.
Current Status
After being dismissed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, CCR attorneys along with co-counsel filed a motion with the Supreme Court asking the Court to hear the two cases. The government filed in opposition.
On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court announced that it would not be hearing the cases of the Guantánamo detainees for the time being. The Court denied the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and co-counsel's motion to hear the case with three justices dissenting and two issuing a statement that the detainees should exhaust the process set up by the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA).
However, on June 29, 2007, in a stunning and rare reversal, the Supreme Court announced that it would indeed hear this case in the coming (2007-2008) term.
We start with the big game that everyones 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?
Its pretty much the battle of the century. Will Bushs legislative end-run around the habeus requirement gain traction and go for long yardage? Will the Courts 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 wouldnt 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 weve got definite upset potential here. The final vote will be 5-4 either way (so bet the under), but I think Ill take the underdogs and the points. Bush goes down in a stunner, 5-4.
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
On October 1, 2007, the Court will hear the first case of the October 2007 term. Washington State Grange v. Washington Republican Party and its sister case, Washington v. Washington Republican Party, centers around the Washington state law that allows candidates to state their party preference as opposed to an all-out party affiliation and its application to the Washington top-two primary system. In the state of Washington, all candidates are put on open primary ballots and the top-two candidates are then placed on the general election ballot.
In their former system, the Montana system, candidates would state I am a candidate of the _____ Party. In the system currently in question, candidates are given the option to state that my party preference is _____. Washingtons election code specifically states that Voters at the primary election are not choosing a political partys nominees.
Its an interesting case that pits the First Amendment freedom of association rights of political parties against the states 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, Im as shocked as you. Lets take a look at:
Medellin v. Texas
Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, was convicted and sentenced to death for participating in the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston. Medellin raised a post-conviction challenge arguing that the state had violated his rights under the Vienna Convention, a treaty to which the United States is a party. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention gives any foreign national detained for a crime the right to contact his consulate
Medellin's argument rested in part on a ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) holding that the U.S. had violated the Vienna Convention rights of 51 Mexican nationals (including Medellin) and that their convictions must be reconsidered
Medellin also cited a memorandum from the President of the United States that instructed state courts to comply with the ICJ's rulings by rehearing the cases. Medellin argued that the Constitution gives the President broad power to ensure that treaties are enforced, and that this power extends to the treatment of treaties in state court proceedings.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected each of Medellin's arguments and dismissed his petition
The Texas court stood by its position that
[t]he President had no authority to order the enforcement in state court of an ICJ ruling, because that would imply a law-making power not allocated to him by the Constitution.
So once again, to sum up: Texas wanted to kill someone that they had convicted for murder. Actually, its not just someone, but an evil illegal alien! Youd 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 couldnt execute him without additional due process. The irony here is so delicious that its clogging my arteries just writing about it.
Prediction: The supremacy of Bushs executive branch once again comes under scrutiny, but this time instead of being challenged by the other branches its coming from the states. Its at the junction between states 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, dont 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 youll excuse me, Im off to try and analyze how our new AG will impact the Courts win percentage. See you next time!
