John Paul Stevens wants out of the Supremes

President Obama will get to make another appointment to our nation's highest court. Will he choose another wise Latina? Perhaps a Protestant this time?

so can I carry around a plutonium-based weapon in my pocket?

At last. The Supremes will tell us what the Second Amendment actually means.

UPDATE: It means you can carry a gun. Didn't it already say that?

First Monday in October

It's that time of year again. A chill rises in the night air. The leaves, ridding themselves of chlorophyll, start to show their true colors. The children change from T-shirts and shorts to long-sleeves and khakis. The birds take wing for warmer climates. And, the Justices leave their summer behind to come out and play.

he's no Scalito

Many conservatives in Congress are divided over certain issues, most notably immigration reform. It seems that the conservatives in the Highest Court in the Land are divided as well.

It’s not every day that one Supreme Court justice, even one as rhetorically unrestrained as Justice Antonin Scalia, characterizes another justice, let alone the chief justice of the United States, as a wimp and a hypocrite.

Yet Justice Scalia did something very close to that, not once but twice, in separate opinions on Monday. As a result, he has served to lift the curtain a bit on the differences within the powerful five-justice conservative bloc that has marched in lock step through much of the term, bent on reshaping the law and, in several important areas, well on the way toward doing so.

In the campaign finance case, he accused Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. of “faux judicial modesty” for writing an opinion that in Justice Scalia’s view effectively verturned the court’s 2003 campaign finance decision “without saying so.” The clear implication was that the chief justice lacked the courage or honesty to overturn the precedent openly as Justice Scalia himself would have done.

“This faux judicial restraint is judicial obfuscation,” he said.

And Justice Scalia was scathing in his criticism of an opinion signed by Chief Justice Roberts that limited, but did not completely abolish, the right of taxpayers to go to court to challenge government expenditures that promote religion. Justice Scalia would have gone on to shut the courthouse door completely, not simply limiting but overturning the precedent that the new ruling invoked.

“Minimalism is an admirable judicial trait,” Justice Scalia said, “but not when it comes at the cost of meaningless and disingenuous distinctions.”

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Honestly, I think the Supremes took on this case because of the name.

what will Bush's lasting legacy be?

Many people will be tempted to say "Iraq," but I'm willing to suggest that it will be this. It's important to remember that Bush has another year in power. It's improbable that another justice will step down during his remaining time in office, but not impossible.

Notice in the picture of the Supremes that Roberts doesn't wear anything to show distinction from the other justices, as Rehnquist did.