First off, let me be clear: Alito, with a sane Congress, would and should not be confirmed. Because he would be on the Court for perhaps 40 years, there really isn't any counterbalancing political "upside" that somehow balances out a confirmation.

With that said, Democrats have a golden opportunity to work with what we have and blend Alito and Abramoff into a single message to carry on to November 2006 -- abuse of power.

Armando recently posted a diary making an interesting counter-argument to the suggestion that Roe v. Wade has actually hurt the liberal movement rather than helped it. Armando suggests that "giving up" on Roe would be politically disastrous for Democrats. This, Armando argues, is because voters would see Dems as "complicit in destroying" the right to choose. Further, if Democrats "stopped fighting for the right to privacy", then why should the American people think the Dems stand for anything? Thus, Democrats must stand up for Roe to maintain a clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans on this issue, which is an issue on which we can win.

However, this argument is flawed, and I'll explain why.

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. This is a major case testing the extent of Executive power during wartime.

Specifically, the Court will consider the constitutionality of Bush's military tribunals trying so-called "enemy combatants". The Court had previously taken no action on whether to accept this case, but now that it has, the Hamdan case becomes one of the most important of the Court's docket this term.

Welcome back to Supreme Court Preview! It's been a while since I last did one of these, but I guess it's OK as long as I stay ahead of the Court's argument schedule...

Supreme Court Preview is meant to serve as a resource of sorts for the dKos community, detailing the cases currently on the Court's docket. I'm progressing through them in the order the cases were granted, which generally follows the order in which they are being argued. If you're interested, however, here are links to the previous S. Ct. Previews that I've put together, based upon general subject matter:

After discussing law and politics with my fellow progressive friends, I'm constantly amazed at my friends' perceptions of the Supreme Court. I often hear variants of: "the Court is necessary to protect liberty against Congressional/Executive overreaching" and even "the Court has done a lot in its history to protect and expand liberty." I don't think it's a stretch to conclude (at least in my experience) that progressives tend to believe much more than conservatives do that the Court can be and is an essential safeguard of our liberties.

Unfortunately, this perception of the Court is wrong. Or, at least, it is wildly exaggerated. Progressives have trumpeted the potential and actual contributions of the Court as helping their cause, when in fact it should be right-wingers, most emphatically not progressives, who prefer an expanded judicial role.

Welcome back to Supreme Court Preview!

On tap this week, I'm taking a look at another upcoming death penalty case, a case dealing with student loan debt (it seems like we all have `em), and a civil procedure case involving attorney's fees.

After a brief hiatus (hey, it's August), the Supreme Court Preview is back! This time, I preview four cases that were granted this past April. Included are two fairly significant criminal procedure cases, an interesting case involving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and one of the many bankruptcy cases the Court is taking up next term.

Here's this week's edition:

It only makes mathematical sense. Think about it - our biggest terrorist threat nowadays arises from Islamic extremism. Obviously not every Arab-looking individual is a terrorist, but it is (indisputably) mathematically more likely that he/she is dangerous than an 80-year old grandmother. Given the fact that the police and security forces have only limited resources, of course it makes sense to allocated these resources to the greatest threats. Using probability to help sniff out terrorist threats should be a key weapon in the fight against terrorism.

Is it that time already? Yep -- time for another SCOTUS preview. The Court granted only three cases this past March, so all three are previewed here.

This time we have a dealth penalty case that probably will garner a bit of media attention and popular interest, and two cases of stuatory interpretation that probably won't. But, hey, I cover 'em all.

So away we go...

The Supreme Court Preview is back for its second week. This time, I review an upcoming free speech case, a state taxation case (as it applies to Native American tribes), and two civil procedure cases, all of which should be heard by the Court sometime this October.

Thanks again for all your input. So here we go:

Welcome to the first Supreme Court Preview!

Over the past few weeks, I've been doing a Supreme Court Roundup summarizing the decisions and their impact for the Court cases handed down that week. Now that the Court is out of session, my plan is to preview 3 or 4 of the cases the Court has agreed to hear for next term, along with a statement as to the potential impact of the case and my prediction of what the Court will do (with the cover-my-butt caveat that my prediction has limited value particularly since briefs haven't even been completed for most of these cases, oral argument is still months away, and we don't know who O'Connor's replacement will be).

For lack of a better method, I'll preview the cases in the order the Court granted certiorari, starting with the first batch of cases granted back on February 22nd. By the start of the next session, I should have all of the currently 41 granted cases covered, hopefully to serve as a helpful resource for the dKos community. With that said, here we go...

Update [2005-7-2 20:36:31 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando

It's no secret what the big SCOTUS news of the week is. In case you missed them, there's plenty of good dKos posts -- including this front-pager by DavidNYC regarding what you can do while we all gear up for the upcoming battle. I stick to my opinion that a Michael McConnell nomination wouldn't be all bad (compared to many alternatives), but now that we're talking about replacing O'Connor and not (yet) Rehnquist, we all have to be all the more picky.

In the meantime, here's the last Supreme Court Roundup of the term, covering the final six opinions decided this past Monday. From now until the next term begins next October, I'll go through the cases the Court will be taking up, including my thoughts about what O'Connor's absence might mean in those cases.

So, here's the final decided cases of the term...

So I hear word that maybe there's a retirement on some court somewhere? And this diary is about the Supreme Court but not about that retirement?

Strange, but true. I just wanted to supplement last week's Roundup with the remaining cases issued last week that I didn't summarize. If you want a break from the O'Connor discussions and want to check out a quick summary and analysis of the Court's recent decisions, the Roundup is for you. Of course, if you're sick of SCOTUS talk altogether, I'm not the guy to talk to...

I'll be back at my regularly scheduled time on Saturday with my summary/analysis of the Court's final opinions that were issued on Monday.

Welcome back! It was a very busy week at the Court, with many decisions coming down on Monday and Thursday as we near the end of the '04-'05 term. Needless to say, the biggest of the week (and probably the biggest of the term) was Kelo v. New London. I'll start with that one.

But first, an apology. Not all of last week cases are included here -- but I promise that I'll summarize the rest of last week's cases in a supplement to this Roundup sometime soon. I love dKos, but I think I would have gotten my butt kicked if I was summarizing the remainder of the Supreme Court opinions rather than helping with and attending my sister's wedding this weekend...

So, without further ado, here we go.

The Supreme Court today ruled in a major takings case, Kelo v. New London.

The city of New London had used its eminent domain power to condemn a large privately-owned piece of land, giving it to a private development corporation for the purposes of economic development.

The Court ruled 5-4 that though the city was giving the taken property to a private entity, it still qualfied as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment and could be taken as long as just compensation is given.

As the Supreme Court gets closer to the end of its term, opinions should be coming fast and furious. This past week the Court released six more. Four of them deal with important issues of criminal law.

First, however, I should note that, in addition to its opinions, the Court rejected to take on a couple of notable cases. The first was an appeal from the 3rd Circuit, which had reversed the FCC's 2003 decision to ease media ownership rules. The second was a rejection of terror suspect Jose Padilla's appeal from the 4th Circuit. The Court rejected the appeal, unsurprisingly so since the 4th Circuit hasn't rules on the case yet. Don't worry, though - this case will eventually get to the Court. Oh, and don't forget about the Beastie Boys -- the Court refused to hear a case brought against them for sampling a six-second segment from one of jazz flutist James Newton's songs.

And now on to the Court's actual decisions.

Welcome to the second installment of Supreme Court Roundup! In case you missed last week's Roundup, you can check it out here.

So - another week, another three decisions by the Supreme Court. Crudely put in basic terms of lasting importance, one was of high (no pun intended) importance, one medium, and the other low. I'll start with the big one first, and work my way down.

The Supreme Court's 2004-2005 term will likely end sometime in the next three weeks or so. Most of you are well aware of what possibly (probably?) will happen shortly thereafter - Chief Justice William Rehnquist, member of the Court for 33 years, will step down and Bush will get to name a new Justice. He's got quite a few options. A good breakdown of the realistic options is available at SCOTUSblog here.

But there's no question that some choices would be better than others. I'm here to make the case for who I think would be the best from our point of view - current 10th Circuit Judge Michael McConnell.