The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


Supreme Court

Supreme Court Term Begins Today, Many Cases Refused

People line up outside the Supreme Court in Washington for the start of the new session. (Evan Vucci/Associated Press)

By John Amick
The Supreme Court began a new term today, beginning with a case pertaining to how long a suspect's right to a lawyer is valid.

The court will hear 55 cases this term. Thousands of cases were refused by the court last week. The Associated Press on some of these cases:

High Court Won't Review Oil Royalties Case

Court Refuses to Get Involved in Church Dispute

Court Turns Down Former Prosecutor in Libel Case

Court Nixes Case of Fired Deputy Who Ran vs. Boss

Court Won't Block Release of Sex Abuse Papers

High Court Refuses to Hear Insider Trading Appeal

Court Won't Force Ill. to Have 'Choose Life' License Plate

Court Won't Review Fla. Pledge of Allegiance Law

High Court Won't Review Death Penalty in Louisiana

Posted at 12:33 PM ET on Oct 5, 2009  | Category:  Supreme Court
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Obama Rallies Doctors | Next: Obama's Busy AfPak Week

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Great point, lilander (October 5, 2009 5:05 PM)!
For those who watched the C-Span special last night, the number of cases that land on the SCT's doorstep is a huge number.
The issues argued apparently determine which cases the SCT will take up.
If anyone has missed the series (at 8PM CDT) on C-Span each night this week, it's fascinating and a ground-breaking look at the inner workings of the SCT.
If you ever wondered ... C-Span is hot after the answers.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | October 5, 2009 6:18 PM

It must first be admitted that the U.S. Constitution never gave to the U.S. Supreme Court the power to substitute their will for the intentions of the Founders of the Constitution. This is easy to prove. Alexander Hamilton admits this in Federalist Paper 78:

"It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature ... The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

Here, Hamilton points out the fact that, in our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST apply the Constitution to all federal laws as intended by the Founders. They are NOT to place their will above the will of those who framed and acceded to the U.S. Constitution. To suggest that the US S CT has the power to alter, change or amend the Constitution at will is to place the US S CT above the Constitution: they can no more do this than the legislative branch can pass an unconstitutional law and the executive branch can carry out an unconstitutional law. Or as Hamilton puts it, putting their will above the Constitution will "equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Neither is acceptable and neither is constitutional.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County

"No one is found to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Posted by: AJAX2 | October 5, 2009 5:21 PM


how many innocent Prison Inmates will rot in jail,

or NOT have their Death Penalty appeal heard,

because the Supremes

were outraged that in the desert of California a Cross is in a graveyard
of Veterans?????????

The United States Supreme Court-- a Profile of Moral Confusion

Posted by: JaxMax | October 5, 2009 5:11 PM

Why do you position a story about the Supreme Court under the heading "The Obama Presidency"? Don't you recognize the independence of the Court as a separate branch of government?

Posted by: lilander | October 5, 2009 5:05 PM

Big oil/energy still winning, with obscene profits, looks like bush/cheney set the supreme court to favor their corporate cronies.

Posted by: jama452 | October 5, 2009 3:16 PM

oh my god, what a conservative court /sarcasm off

Posted by: woodard3 | October 5, 2009 1:30 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company