With scant paper trails behind them, President Bush’s two
picks for the Supreme Court have left many unsure which way the
pair leans on various issues impacting the nation’s
schools.
Many law experts agree that the already-confirmed Chief Justice
John Roberts Jr. and the newly nominated Harriet Miers could sway
the court on a range of issues including prayer in public schools,
the use of affirmative action and campus military recruitment.
One issue expected to reach the Supreme Court again in coming
years is prayer in public schools, which the court has ruled
against decisively ““ even in less clear cases like prayer
before high school graduations and football games.
Though both picks are said to be deeply religious ““
Roberts is a Catholic and Miers is an evangelical Christian ““
some are unsure what role faith will play in the decisions they
make on the bench.
“They personally might have all kinds of positive views
about religion but I don’t think they really let that affect
their ruling on religion,” said USC law Professor Charles
Whitebread.
But recently released documents written by Roberts could prove
more telling of the new chief justice’s school prayer
leanings.
As a White House lawyer in 1985, Roberts wrote in support of
school prayer, adding that allowing the banned practice would be
“within the constitutional power of Congress.”
Though UCLA law Professor Jonathan Varat said reinstated school
prayer would be “surprising,” he added that with Miers
and Roberts on the Supreme Court, there could be a greater
“allowance for religion in public places.”
This could result in more leeway for religious expression, like
recently disputed displays of the Ten Commandments, at schools and
other public places.
Another issue that could affect UCLA students ““ and
college students across the nation ““ is campus military
recruitment.
After a recent legal struggle between military recruiters and
some of the nation’s top law schools who are opposed to the
military’s discriminatory policy toward gays, legal experts
expect a Supreme Court decision in the coming months.
The academic freedom battle revolves around the Solomon
Amendment, a 1996 measure that allows the federal government to
take funding away from colleges that deny campus access to military
recruiters.
The debate comes as the war in Iraq has sharply increased the
military’s need for new recruits.
Though the two Court picks have said or written little on the
topic, some expect Roberts and Miers to rule on the side of the
military given what little is already known of their conservative
political leanings.
“I suspect that they’re going to think that Congress
has the power to take money away if you don’t do what
Congress wants you to do,” Whitebread said.
Because both picks appear to be strict constitutionalists,
meaning they will likely adhere more closely to precedent, some
expect them to have subtle impact on the court’s
direction.
“What I find inconceivable is that there would be a
radical revolution,” said UCLA political science Professor
Thomas Schwartz.
“It’s a matter of where you draw certain fuzzy
lines. You’re not going to see anything exciting,” he
said.
Regardless of their personal leanings coming into the Supreme
Court, many law experts agree that, with time on the bench,
justices’ views are liable to shift as other justices have in
the past.
Retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whose vacancy Miers
was nominated to fill, joined the court opposed to affirmative
action, a stance she reversed after years on the bench.
“There’s a tendency in all of us to take certain
hard line positions in the abstract but when you see real cases
your position changes,” Whitebread said.