Comment E-mail Print

Page 2 of 2

More generally, this term's divided rulings demonstrated once more that the law is whatever Kennedy -- a moderate conservative -- says it is.

Two cases illustrate Kennedy's influence as the man in the middle on the nine-member court.

In a dispute over judicial ethics, the issue was whether the Constitution requires a judge to step aside from a case when one party has contributed significantly to his election. In a DNA case, a convict was seeking the right to test evidence that would conclusively demonstrate his guilt or innocence.

Kennedy sided with the liberals in the judicial matter, saying elected judges cannot take part in cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.

"Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, similar fears of bias can arise when -- without the consent of the other parties -- a man chooses the judge in his own cause," Kennedy said for the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, saying states should be allowed to make their own rules.

Roberts made essentially the same argument in the DNA case, refusing to grant defendants a constitutional right to test the evidence. And this time he had Kennedy's vote.

"There are a lot of these issues where Justice Kennedy's vote is absolutely critical," said Paul Clement, a lawyer with the Atlanta-based King & Spalding firm and a former solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration.

Another important area is executive authority, particularly concerning the power to detain terrorism suspects. There, the liberals, with Kennedy on their side, have held sway.

That is one reason, perhaps the main reason, the Obama administration moved terror suspect Ali al-Marri into the civilian criminal justice system after he had been held without charges for more than five years in a Navy brig. The court had agreed to hear al-Marri's case and the administration risked seeing the court imposing limits on presidential power.

This term, the justices also ruled against efforts by business interests to block state lawsuits and investigations by invoking federal laws and regulations. In two cases, the court ruled in favor of plaintiffs in civil lawsuits, including a woman who lost her arm as a result of a botched injection, and state attorneys general who wanted to investigate potential discrimination in lending by national banks.

In the latter case, Scalia joined with the liberal justices to form an unusual majority. The same alignment also prevailed in a case limiting searches of suspects' automobiles without warrants.

In more mundane cases with significant consequences to the legal system, the court's conservatives limited access to courthouses by making it harder for plaintiffs to file and win civil lawsuits. Those decisions went against environmentalists and a Pakistani Muslim man who sought to hold FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft to account for the harsh conditions of his detention in a federal jail cell following the Sept. 11 attacks.

>> Back -- Page 1 2

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

++ Discuss this topic in The Forum

Current rating: 5.0 out of 5.0 (1 total votes)