The Supreme Court began another term on Monday with a different look. Following the retirement of John Paul Stevens, who had the longest tenure among the justices, President Obama replaced him with former solicitor general Elena Kagan.
As solicitor general, Kagan served as the government's top lawyer in Supreme Court cases. She is thus forced to take herself out of 24 of the 51 cases that the new court has agreed to hear so far because of a conflict of interest.
That leaves the possibility of the eight remaining justices splitting 4-to-4 on those cases, which is highly likely: four remaining justices lean to the left, while the other four lean right.
Kagan should be applauded for recognizing the conflict of interest and taking herself out of the cases, showing that she possesses a key quality of a good judge: the ability to recognize and eliminate personal bias. However, a better solution should have been proposed to eliminate the highly probable 4-to-4 split, which would amount to a stalemate. Perhaps a replacement judge could be nominated for these cases.
Some of the cases that the court is set to hear in the upcoming term have been the subject of much public controversy and debate.
One case involves a California law that prohibits the sale of violent video games to minors. Opponents of the law say it violates free speech rights and points to a lack of evidence that shows a connection between playing violent video games and actually committing violent crimes in the real world.
The editorial board's position is that the law would do little to serve its intended purpose, so there is no point in risking a violation of the First Amendment. Parents will still inevitably buy the video games for their children upon being persuaded to do so.
Interaction with parents is the common thread between all cases of this sort, including attempts to block children from listening to music with explicit lyrics. Good parental guidance is the key to preventing kids from committing violence, regardless of what they see on a screen or hear on the radio.
Another case that the Supreme Court will hear is a different First Amendment question. The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. is notorious for its anti-gay protests across the nation. (Its website is godhatesfags.com.)
The group has been taken to court after picketing at the funeral of a slain U.S. soldier with signs that said things like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" to suggest that "God is punishing the United States for tolerating homosexuality."
Though we do not agree at all with the group's messages and find them horrific, they do have the right to protest under the First Amendment.
At some of the funerals where the group has protested, however, groups of bikers have stepped in and formed blockades, revving their engines to block out the distractions. This action is also a form of free expression and should be applauded.
Families of slain soldiers and other figures whose funerals might invoke disruptive protests should have the option to protect themselves against that possibility.
In these cases and in all of the others that the Supreme Court will hear in the upcoming term, we encourage the judges to make wise decisions based on the spirit of the constitution, avoiding partisan votes based solely on personal and party ideologies.
