NYT: The New 5-to-4 Supreme Court

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/weekinreview/22liptak.html?ex=1334894400&en=edcabda972b0efe9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The New 5-to-4 Supreme Court

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: April 22, 2007

AFTER the 5-to-4 decision last week in which the Supreme Court reversed course on abortion, upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, many court watchers were wondering what to expect next.

For guidance, law professors and Supreme Court specialists looked to lists of 5-to-4 cases in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired last year, had been the swing vote. One list, compiled by Martin S. Lederman at Georgetown University, had 31 entries, with cases on religion and race, elections and crime, medicine and free speech.

Last week’s abortion decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, demonstrated the court’s new math. With the justice who took the O’Connor seat, Samuel A. Alito, in the majority, and the new swing justice, Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the decision, the court upheld, by a single vote, the abortion act.

Just seven years ago, Justice O’Connor voted with the court’s liberals to strike down a similar Nebraska law banning the procedure, known medically as intact dilation and extraction. It involves removing an intact fetus rather than dismembering the fetus in the uterus. The decision recast the court’s approach to abortion, shifting its emphasis toward fetal life and away from deference to medical judgments about women’s health.

The decision last week brought into focus the greatest hopes of conservatives and the worst fears of liberals. Is the court about to make sweeping changes in important areas of constitutional law, including in decisions expected shortly on the role of money in political campaigns and of race in the schools?

more...

[Monkeyman]

1. Can We Now Say We have a right wing court

[Erika]

3. We can now say we have a laughable political court

with no credibility concerning the law.

[AtomicKitten]

2. a progressive posted here at DU

that he wasn't going to let those pesky liberal (but nonprogressive types) here at DU try to argue how important solidarity is in the vote to protect the Supreme Court.

They say you reap what you sow; unfortunately it isn't until the actual consequence hits home does the remedy that would have prevented the consequence seem not quite so egregious comparatively.

[sellitman]

4. Hey Nader voters.....

:thumbsdown:

[Captain Angry]

5. I think the Bush voters were the bigger problem.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Bush voters support the decision

Nader voters are supposedly pro-choice yet they voted for Nader instead of Gore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Realize they woudl have staid home

if Nader had not run. They were never in Gore's pocket

Damn it, time to realize that the problem was, we, or rather you, did not court them

I'm an indie, by the way... and there are days I shake my head in amazement at the blame game

You should start blaming the Supremes about this, not the voters that were not yours to have to begin with.

[sellitman]

9. Staying home would have been just as stupid as voting for Nader.

That tired old dog won't hunt.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. It will probably be 6-3 if we lose in 2008

Stevens is unlikely to remain on the court for another six years. This is another reason we cannot afford to lose in 2008.