Supreme Court term could influence 2012 election
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court opens a potentially epic term Monday that could roil debate in the 2012 presidential election campaign.
The justices have taken a raft of cases that would affect people in their daily lives, including on when police can track their cars with GPS devices and what racy material gets on television when children might be watching.
In coming weeks, the justices will announce whether they will take on two major disputes over federal power, the most closely watched involving the new requirement that most people buy health insurance by 2014. The other concerns Arizona's law allowing police to check the immigration status of people they have stopped.
"This could be a blockbuster term, depending on how events break," says Washington lawyer John Elwood, a former assistant U.S. solicitor general now in private practice. "If the justices grant the health care case, as seems likely, this could be a very consequential term."
The Justice Department asked the court Wednesday to review the constitutionality of the insurance mandate, part of a health law overhaul that is the signature of President Obama's domestic agenda. All major Republican presidential candidates have vowed to work to repeal the law. A ruling on the mandate could come by July, right before the party conventions.
Neil Kinkopf, a professor at Georgia State University and expert on immigration law, agrees this could be "a marquee term for the court." He says the Arizona immigration dispute has only become more compelling because other states, including Alabama and Georgia, have passed laws trying to discourage people from crossing the border illegally that potentially infringe on civil rights and tread on federal power.
The nine justices who will ascend the bench Monday are split ideologically. Power rests mainly with the five conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
On the liberal side, and often in dissent in high-profile cases, are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. When the liberal wing prevails, it is usually because Justice Kennedy, the most moderate of the conservatives, has swung over to their side.
Newest Justice Kagan easily worked her way into the rhythm of the court during her first term, becoming an active, strategic questioner from the bench and writing pointed, attention-getting opinions. Chief Justice Roberts praised her over the summer for sharp opinions, incisive questions and an ability to "hit the ground running."
Kagan was the first justice in 40 years appointed without prior judicial experience. She had been the U.S. solicitor general, representing the federal government, and appeared regularly in court.
In a talk at the Aspen Institute in August, Kagan said she was surprised by the collegiality among the justices behind the scenes, given the "sharp give-and-take" and divisions on rulings.
As the most junior of the nine justices, Kagan speaks last in their private conferences on cases and votes last as the justices decide how to resolve a case. She said that isn't always so bad on a court that tends to split 5-4 on closely watched cases. "There's certain drama to going ninth."
Health and immigration laws
