Michelle Malkin » SCOTUS round-up Plus: The $54 million pants case decided Update: Analysts Mull Possibility of Supreme Court Vacancy

SCOTUS round-up Plus: The $54 million pants case decided Update: Analysts Mull Possibility of Supreme Court Vacancy

By Michelle Malkin • June 25, 2007 10:35 AM

A bunch of Supreme Court decisions coming down today…

Allah’s watching: Breaking: SCOTUS says schools can censor “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” (plus there’s a decision in the $54 million lost pants case filed by a crazy judge against D.C. dry cleaners.)

So’s SCOTUSBlog:

LiveBlog from the Court: 5 opinions, no schools cases

Posted by Jason Harrow at 10:11 AM

In this space, we’ll give real-time details regarding what opinions are being issued today. Lyle will have further details below.

10:00: 4 grants on today’s Orders list (to be posted). 06-179, 457, 1286, 10119. Orders can now be found here.
10:01: NAHB v. Defenders of Wildlife decided. Rev’d. Written by Alito. 5-4.
10:05: Alito still reciting from Defenders of Wildlife.
10:07: Hein decided. Written by Alito. 5-4.
10:12: Wilkie v. Robbins decided. Written by Souter. 7-2. Rev’d and remanded.
10:19: Morse decided. Written by 5-4 in part.
10:25: Election case decided. Written by the Chief. That’s it - no schools cases.

Wires reporting on a business win in an environmental case…

The Supreme Court sided with developers and the Bush administration Monday in a dispute with environmentalists over protecting endangered species.

The court ruled 5-4 for home builders and the Environmental Protection Agency in a case that involved the intersection of two environmental laws, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the conservative majority, said the endangered species law takes a back seat to the clean water law when it comes to the EPA handing authority to a state to issue water pollution permits. Developers often need such permits before they can begin building.

A federal appeals court had said that EPA did not do enough to ensure that endangered species would not be harmed if the state took over the permitting.

Environmental groups, backed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, said the administration position would in essence gut a key provision of the endangered species law. The act prohibits federal agency action that will jeopardize a species and calls for consultation between federal agencies.

The cases are National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 06-340, EPA v. Defenders of Wildlife, 06-549.

…and a win for Bush on faith-based initiatives…

The Supreme Court on Monday said ordinary taxpayers don’t have the legal standing to challenge a White House initiative helping religious charities get a share of federal money.

The 5-4 decision dealt with a suit by a group of atheists and agnostics against Bush administration officials including the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

The taxpayers’ group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.

Taxpayers in the case “set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur” unless the court stopped the Bush administration initiative, wrote Justice Samuel Alito. “Of course, none of these things has happened.”

More good news:

McCain-Feingold gets loosened…

The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court, split 5-4, in upholding an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections.

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state’s two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush’s judicial nominees.

Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.

Who will fill the next vacant SCOTUS seats? CNS reports:

If a U.S. Supreme Court justice steps down in the coming months, the Bush administration may have an easier time filling the seat with a conservative nominee than is generally expected, some political analysts argue.

The first full term in which Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justice Samuel Alito have served together is drawing to a close, and the country is again bracing for the possibility of another justice retiring from the bench.

Retirement speculation focuses on Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both liberals. Stevens is 87 years old; and although Ginsburg is 13 years younger, her frail appearance has often prompted conjecture of poor health.

These justices have also taken to reading their dissents from the bench in recent months, a practice that Curt Levey, general counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network, believes may signify their displeasure with being in the minority on several important cases.

Justice David Souter, 67, who was appointed by President George H. W. Bush, also is rumored to be considering retirement.

Jan Crawford Greenburg, author of the recent book, “Supreme Conflict: The Inside Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court,” has written that the Bush administration has prepared a “short list” of possible nominees should a justice step down.

According to Greenburg, possible nominees include Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals; Priscilla Owen and Edith Brown Clement, both of the Fifth Circuit; Diane Sykes of the Seventh Circuit; Loretta Preska, a New York Federal District judge; and Raoul Cantero of the Florida State Supreme Court.

Posted in: Supreme Court

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (15)

trackbacks (0)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#1

On June 25th, 2007 at 11:23 am, BKennedy said:

You know, much as I dispise El Presidente right now for his shamnesty scheme, Roberts and Alito were choice supreme court picks.

Oh course, there was El Presidente’s crony pick, Harriet Miers inbetween them…
#2

On June 25th, 2007 at 11:24 am, Rational Thought said:

This, folks, is why elections matter. The only thing a POTUS does of consequence — and it is extreme, life-altering, generation-affecting, decades-long consequence — is appoint Supreme Court justices. With 3 justices up to retire, the Dems must lose in ‘08 or we won’t recognize this country 10 years down the road.

This is very, very serious business. Imagine your beautiful, free, American daughters being forced to wear headscarves in the public schools because their bare heads offend someone’s religion, and then imagine a Clinton court saying it’s Constitutional. Imagine your sweet little 5-year-old being greeted on the first day of kindergarten by a teacher in full burqa, and a court that says that’s Constitutional, too. The democrats inexplicable alliance with radical Islam means this election is the most important we’ve ever had.

Be vigilant, and for God’s sake vote.
#3

On June 25th, 2007 at 11:29 am, HarryStar said:

Oh I would LOVE to have Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court!!!!

Watching her go in front of Ted Kennedy would be ….PRICELESS!
#4

On June 25th, 2007 at 12:24 pm, spacen said:

I have my doubts on a Souter or Ginsberg retirement. Although I strongly disagree with most of their opinions, I do believe they try to make decisions based on the law and what is right for this country. If I was in their position, I would try to hold on until the 08 election and hope for a Dem. Two liberal appointees replacing them wouldn’t change the current balance, but it would keep it close enough for a possible third appointee (Scalia?) to swing the court back their way.
#5

On June 25th, 2007 at 12:34 pm, desertdweller said:

Speech advocating illegal drug use poses a threat to student safety that is just as serious, if not always as immediately obvious. As we have recognized in the past and as the opinion of the Court today details, illegal drug use presents a grave and in many ways unique threat to the physical safety of students. I therefore conclude that the public schools may ban speech advocating illegal drug use.

Boulder, anyone?
#6

On June 25th, 2007 at 12:56 pm, HYTEAndy said:

Bush’s Supreme Court appointees (excluding Miers) are the high point of his 2nd term. All else is, mostly, icky.
#7

On June 25th, 2007 at 1:00 pm, doppelganglander said:

I am so hoping that one of the liberal justices steps down, one way or another, ASAP. I just hope that given such a golden opportunity, Bush has enough sense not to nominate another Miers.
#8

On June 25th, 2007 at 2:16 pm, BKennedy said:

Spacen: I have my doubts on a Souter or Ginsberg retirement. Although I strongly disagree with most of their opinions, I do believe they try to make decisions based on the law and what is right for this country. If I was in their position, I would try to hold on until the 08 election and hope for a Dem. Two liberal appointees replacing them wouldn’t change the current balance, but it would keep it close enough for a possible third appointee (Scalia?) to swing the court back their way.

You can’t possibly mean “I disagree with the faulty legal logic behind Roe v. Wade but agree with the results” Ruth Gator Ginsburg, can you?
#9

On June 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm, spacen said:

You can’t possibly mean “I disagree with the faulty legal logic behind Roe v. Wade but agree with the results” Ruth Gator Ginsburg, can you?

Yes, that Ginsburg. Even though I think she grossly perverts the law to arrive at a predetermined opinion, I do think she has good intentions. Questioning someone’s intentions and even making wild accusations about someone’s intentions is a page I don’t want to take from the Democrat’s playbook.
#10

On June 25th, 2007 at 2:36 pm, Rusty said:

Rational Thought said:

Imagine your sweet little 5-year-old being greeted on the first day of kindergarten by a teacher in full burqa, and a court that says that’s Constitutional, too.

So you’re against religious expression in schools? I assume that applies to Jews and Christians then. No prayer in schools? Teachers can’t wear crucifixes, that sort of thing? If so, I applaud your consistency. If not, well, I don’t know what to say.
#11

On June 25th, 2007 at 7:05 pm, Xrlq said:

The Supreme Court is the one reason I have never doubted that re-electing Bush, warts and all, was the right thing to do. If John Kerry had nominated Rehnquist and O’Connor’s replacements, we’d have a new Warren Court right now.
#12

On June 25th, 2007 at 7:45 pm, Big Al said:

I know this will sound defeatist, but if Bush can appoint a conservative to replace a liberal justice, I could stomach a dem president for 4 years.
#13

On June 25th, 2007 at 8:34 pm, The Raging Republican said:

Supreme Court appointees are the MOST crucial decisions a President has to make. Thats why I am at the point now that I would vote for any Republican over the best Democrat any day. Its too dangerous to vote for a Democrat. Liberals have lost their minds! Sorry, but I just don’t want this great nation turning into San Francisco!
#14

On June 25th, 2007 at 10:20 pm, Bob Mc said:

Now that the court has determined that McCain-Feingold prohibitions on issue ads are an unconstitutional infringement on political speech, how do we go about undoing the damage?

The elections in ‘02, ‘04 & ‘06 were not free and fair elections under the first amendment. Who is to say the outcome of those elections would not have been different had the American people been allowed a full, free and fair debate as the Constitution guarantees.

Will we now see mass resignations from the traitors in congress who voted for this abomination, in defiance of the oath they took to support and defend the constitution? I won’t hold my breath waiting for them to do the right thing.

Those who defended their votes by claiming it was not their place to determine the constitutionality of the law they passed deserve a special kind of enmity, and need to be held accountable for denying the American people their first amendment rights these past five years.
#15

On July 2nd, 2007 at 7:11 pm, rightisright said:

Any of the judges mentioned would be great…poster HARRYSTAR made me laugh with his proposed head to bottle (Judge Brown and TK(the bottle))confrontation in the senate hearings.