Five Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Term

Time magazine put together a report on the Five Supreme Court Cases to watch this term. There are some interesting ones in here:

Case #1: Salazar v. Buono
At issue: Whether the government can permit the display of a crucifix on public land as per the Establishment Clause.

An 8-ft.-tall crucifix has stood on an outcrop called Sunrise Rock on the Mojave National Preserve since 1934, but in one of the court's earliest arguments of the term, the Justices will be asked to consider whether it should be removed. The battle has been brewing for a while - the cross, erected without government approval, was slated for removal by the U.S. National Park Service after a request from Buddhists to create their own memorial near the site was denied. But in 2000, Congress hastily passed a law prohibiting the use of public funds to remove the cross, in essence tying the National Park Service's hands. Congress declared the cross a National Memorial in 2002, and in 2003 it gave the small parcel of land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) - the group that constructed the original cross.

My view of this case at first glance is that the 1st amendment does prohibit the government from favoring one group over the other, so I'm inclined to say that to be fair, the cross should be removed. But I'd want to know more about the decision making process- why was it left there so long- and whether there is any historical value of the cross now.

Case #2: Maryland v. Shatzer
At issue: The scope of the rights of police suspects, as given in the court's landmark 1966 decision, Miranda v. Arizona.

In Maryland v. Shatzer, Michael Shatzer was questioned by police about sexual abuse of his 3-year-old child, and after being told he had the right to counsel as part of his Miranda rights, declined to answer any questions without an attorney present. The officer never pursued Shatzer further, but nearly three years later, a different detective questioned Shatzer, at which point he admitted abuse. Shatzer now argues this confession is inadmissible because the second police officer, who was unaware of Shatzer's original Miranda request, questioned him without an attorney present.

My view of this case is that the Miranda rules were designed to protect those people who didn't know their rights. In this case, Shatzer knew his rights- they were told to him earlier- yet he still answered questions, and then later was told that he had forgotten his own rights and so the he wants the evidence inadmissible? No way- the cops read them off, that's all they need to do, and if you don't listen or forget, that's your fault.

Case #3: Graham v. Florida / Sullivan v. Florida
At issue: Whether life imprisonment for juveniles on nonhomicide charges constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The Eighth Amendment precludes cruel and unusual punishment, but it has long been left to the Supreme Court to define exactly what that term means. This court will be asked to consider it again in a pair of cases on the docket. In Sullivan, the petitioner was 13 years old when he was indicted as an adult and sentenced to life in prison without parole in Florida for sexual assault of an elderly woman. In Graham, a 19-year-old violated his parole by committing attempted armed robbery while on parole for two previous robbery attempts he had committed while he was a minor. He too was subsequently sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

My view on this case is that cruel and unusual punishment most definitely does not mean life in prison. That is a humane and usual punishment. I can't understand how these cases are even controversial- this should be pretty easy to determine. If the Supreme Court interprets life in prison as cruel and unusual, soon it could interpret prison as cruel and unusual, and then a stern talking to as cruel and unusual, and then there are no more punishments in liberal utopia unreal world.

Case #4: National Rifle Association v. Chicago / McDonald v. Chicago
At issue: Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

A pair of cases challenge Chicago's 27-year-old ban on handgun sales within the city limits. Originally designed to curb violence in the city, the ban has long irked Second Amendment advocates, who take an expansive view of the amendment's wording that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But the Supreme Court had long held that the Second Amendment pertained only to federal laws, until a 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a ban on handguns and automatic weapons in Washington, D.C. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged an individual right to bear arms, and it opened the door for these challenges to the Chicago regulation.

My view is that in the Heller decision the Supreme Court recognized an individuals inherent right to keep and bear arms and that that right could not be infringed (ie, the 2nd amendment), and that therefore under the 14th amendment clause, the 2nd amendment is now incorporated to the states, and thus the Chicago anti-2nd amendment laws are unconstitutional. Another easy one.

Case #5: American Needle v. National Football League

At issue: Whether sporting leagues should be exempt from antitrust regulations.

Experts say American Needle may turn out to be the most important legal decision in sporting history. The sportswear manufacturer contracted with NFL teams to produce hats and headgear with official team logos. But the NFL decided to give an exclusive leaguewide license to Reebok in 2000, leading American Needle to sue, claiming the NFL's action violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by limiting the market for who could produce team-branded merchandise.

The fundamental question for the court to decide is whether the NFL should be considered a single entity or a collection of 32 individual businesses. The answer to this question has repercussions beyond the production of licensed merchandise. If the NFL is considered a single entity, it would largely be exempt from antitrust laws, giving the league not only continued right to grant exclusive licenses for team apparel but also the ability to make decisions on a leaguewide basis. This opens the door to the NFL - rather than individual teams - determining things like ticket prices and player salaries. Indeed, the bargaining power of the NFL Players Union is based on antitrust legislation that the league would largely be immune to if it receives a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court. Other sporting leagues are watching the American Needle case closely; many have filed briefs in favor of the NFL's position.

My view on this one is that the NFL is a single entity and thus exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act. So is the NBA, NHL, MLB, MLS, MMA, and any other league. They have a single commissioner and play under unified rules, and thus are their own single entity.