Abortion, birth control and race are among the most divisive issues the Supreme Court will confront over the next nine months, amid a presidential election campaign in which some candidates are talking pointedly about the justices and the prospect of replacing some of them in the next few years. But Gorod said that Roberts’ votes in the health care cases show that he also worries about the court’s legitimacy and his reputation as chief justice. Last term, he wrote the leading dissent when the court struck down state laws banning same-sex marriage.
Advertisement
As a outcome of the current alignment, Devins said, “the Roberts court has generated more marquee decisions divided by party alignment than all other courts combined”.
A challenge to race-based admissions to American colleges and universities. The court has previously expressed its skepticism about these measures.
Religious liberties: Are religious colleges and nonprofits exempt from contraceptives mandates under the Affordable Care Act? The court has provided little guidance on what that term means.
This year, when the chief justice rejected a second conservative challenge to the health care law, he did so in a lawyerly dissection of its text. “On issue after issue, Kennedy provides the deciding vote”, said conservative commentator Ed Whelan, no fan of Kennedy.
Roberts, who has said he hopes to guide his court toward modest and unanimous rulings, can not have enjoyed the rancor. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush said Roberts “did not have a proven, extensive record” when his brother President George W. Bush chose him, and he pledged that he would not make “politically expedient” choices for the court.
Even before the term began, Democratic and Republican presidential candidates were describing the kind of justices they would appoint if nominated. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, like Kennedy and Souter, refused in 1992 to overturn the right to abortion set earlier in the Roe v. Wade ruling.
The Times characterized the Court’s last term as one of “leftward drift and acrimony”, citing bitter exchanges over the death penalty. Four justices are in their 80s or late 70s, led by 82-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They were admitted after having earned the top grades in their high school class.
“The University of Texas has a very holistic process to try and achieve diversity in its classes”. The appellate judges again sided with the university, and challengers of the plan are returning to Supreme Court. Right-wing conservatives have denounced the ruling. The abortion test case will likely come from Texas, where the Republican controlled legislature enacted strict new regulations on abortion clinics, requiring them to make costly renovations, and limiting the ability of doctors to perform abortions.
With the recent accusations against Planned Parenthood, it’s likely the Court will hear its first abortion case since 2007. Justice Stephen Breyer, who is Jewish, was there as well.
The last Supreme Court term ended with liberal victories, conservative disarray and bruised relations among the justices. The justices said then states may not put an “undue burden” on women who seek an abortion.
This time, it is religious organizations such as hospitals, charities and universities that want to be freed from the requirement.
Seven appeals courts have agreed with the government, but an eighth recently sided with challengers.
Two other cases on the court docket also have partisan overtones.
In Abood, the court said public workers who decline to join a union can, nevertheless, be required to pay for the union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and ensure “labor peace”. The case argues that “being compelled to pay union fees to subsidize [disagreeable] activities” is a violation of First Amendment rights. The unions say the fees are warranted because they are obligated to represent all public employees, whether or not they are union members. Republicans often take aim at public and private sector unions, which generally align with Democrats. A loss would weaken them at the same time the court has made it easier for wealthy individuals and corporations to spend unlimited amounts on elections.
They say that the Constitution specifically infers that it is the number of ‘eligible voters, ‘ and not the total number of people, who form the bases of the equality of representative democracy.
Advertisement
The case was brought by the Project on Fair Representation, a small conservative advocacy group that successfully mounted a challenge to the Voting Rights Act in 2013. Does the population count include children, non-citizen immigrants both in the country legally and illegally, and others like those with a criminal record who are thus ineligible to vote?
