2 Comments
Monday marked the first day of the new Supreme Court session, and just as rookie Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently threw out the first pitch at a Yankees-Red Sox game, the court is now officially underway with a docket full of curveballs.

The session marks the first of the Obama administration, and will have observers on both sides of the aisle waiting to see how the addition of Sotomayor will affect the court's rulings. If the first day is any indication, President Obama's first SCOTUS pick will definitely leave her mark. The AP reports that she asked more questions Monday than Justice Clarence Thomas asked over the course of several years.

The only change to the makeup of the court is the replacement of Justice David Souter by Sotomayor, which doesn't figure to change the ideological balance of the court much at all. Sotomayor's conduct, however, will be under the microscope, as conservatives will seek ways to leverage her into opposition to President Obama.

We took a look at some of the cases before the Supreme Court, and here are a few that figure to be interesting:

Filming Dog Fights (With or Without Michael Vick):
In United States v. Stevens, the court is being asked to consider a 1999 law that makes it illegal to sell videotapes or other depictions of animal cruelty. In this case, it refers to videos of dog fighting, although the law was initially enacted as a response to weird, fetishistic "crush videos."

The government wants this material to be treated the same as child pornography, essentially. The problem is that the law is overly broad. By banning "depictions" of animal cruelty, they make no distinction between the dog fighting tapes and, say, "Old Yeller" or an episode of "Itchy and Scratchy."

Statute of "Lawyering Up" Limitations:
In Maryland v. Shatzer, one of the cases heard today, the Court is being asked to decide how long a person stays "lawyered up" when he asks for counsel. The details of this case are pretty disgusting, as the plaintiff is trying to keep a confession of child molestation out of court. Police interrogated him while he was imprisoned on an unrelated charge, and when he asked for a lawyer, they ended the questioning.

Three years later, with new information, they went to question him again. He waived his Miranda rights and admitted to some elements of the crime. At issue is whether police were allowed to initiate that second interrogation, since Shatzer had been in custody the entire time.

Guns! Chicago Handgun-Ban Case
McDonald v. Chicago is the case that figures to get the most play politically. It's a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban, and figures either to confirm or assuage gun-owners' anxiety about the president's pick on the issue of Second Amendment rights. The details of the case are likely to be lost in the political din.

What's interesting about this case, though, is that it's possible for a win by gun-rights advocates also to be a win for liberals. One of the arguments against the gun ban could also be applied to other amendments, and strengthen the Bill of Rights against states' rights.

So, the overall message of this SCOTUS session? Now could be your last opportunity to grab your guns and your lawyer and head on down to the dog-fight filming. Maybe that's where all those people were going when they got lost and ended up outside the health-care town halls!