Supreme Court

A year after the Supreme Court banned prayer at public school graduation ceremonies, many students will still be receiving the traditional blessing as they leave high school this spring.In school districts throughout Maryland, graduating seniors will have the chance to attend privately sponsored baccalaureates, ceremonies typically including prayers, hymns and other religious trappings.For generations, most public high schools in Baltimore and surrounding counties had an opening or closing prayer at graduations.

Maybe what this country needs on the Supreme Court is a real politician or at least a sensible political scientist or two. Perhaps they would help the court's majority understand how it has allowed unlimited big-donor money to contaminate and almost destroy our politics. The infamous Citizens United decision -- which permits corporations and individuals to flood election campaigns with torrents of cash through super PACs as long as they are independent of candidates' formal organizations -- has invited some of the worst abuses of negative campaigning.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rejected yesterday the plea of a Michigan woman who wants to turn off the medical machinery that keeps her brain-damaged husband alive. The action appears to give states new authority to limit the "right to die."The court did not issue a ruling in the dispute. But it did vote to leave intact a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court that sharply reduced the authority of relatives to carry out a person's wishes to die after becoming medically hopeless.If that individual had not spelled out the exact circumstances under which life-support systems should be withdrawn, the state court said, family members may not do so, even if they believe they know from conversations what the individual wanted.

Maryland's highest court rejected a request to reconsider an April ruling that blocks state law enforcement from collecting DNA samples when a suspect is arrested, court officials said Friday. The decision puts the case on track for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. States and federal courts are split over whether taking a DNA sample before a suspect is convicted violates a person's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Law enforcement agencies announced last month that they would halt the practice for the time being.

When one person's ability to make himself heard is may times superior to that of his neighbor, that first person can overpower the voice of the second and drown it out. When this is done, the second person's right to free expression has been denied because such drowned-out speech does not exist in any practical sense if nobody hears it. The Supreme Court, in ruling that there shall be no limits on corporate donations to political candidates, empowered...

I heartily concur with your concerns about the Supreme Court's recent decision revising the 1969 Miranda ruling ("Eroding Miranda," June 2). This ruling constituted a clear defense against self-incrimination to an individual suspected of a crime. The new decision makes it more difficult for a suspect to invoke this right. It is unclear, in this case, whether the suspect understood this right, but he clearly should not have been questioned further in the absence of an explicit indication — his signature — that he understood his rights and chose not to invoke them.

Nothing has focused as much attention on the Supreme Court since the 2000 Florida election recount case as last week's arguments over the constitutionality of President Obama's health care act. The outcome, expected this summer, will hang ominously over this year's presidential campaign until then, and beyond. Already the radio and television airwaves, the Internet, newspaper accounts and commentary are filled with descriptions of the exchanges between the lawyers arguing pro and con before the justices who will decide the fate of the controversial law. Most of these observations are second-hand, based on transcripts and on audio recordings only fairly recently permitted, because television cameras are barred.

Barack Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to spend advertisement dollars for legislation they have an interest in is hypocritical to say the least. The amount of taxpayers' dollars being expended by Democrats in the form of special deals for other Democrats to pass the health care bill is by far more outrageous than corporations spending their own dollars for legislation they favor. Clinton R. Dembinsky, Nottingham

The press complains that five conservative justices on the Supreme Court walk in lockstep to promote their agenda. And that may very well be the case. But in the interest of journalistic fairness, should it not be pointed out that the four liberal justices stick together all the time as well? If a case is to be decided on its merits, would we not expect from time to time that someone on each side would occasionally defect to the other? When it attributes the virtues to one bloc and the vices to the other, the media - like the court - is displaying bad judgment.

The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court allowing corporations to pour millions into federal elections is frightening and dangerous ("And now, the deluge," Jan. 25). Even more alarming is that many of us never saw it coming. In fact this "gem" really took me by surprise. I cringe to think where the Citizens United v. FEC decision will lead. In coming campaigns, corporations will be lining up to shovel funds into their favorite candidates' war chests. If Americans took greater interest in local politics, such a judicial bombshell would not be so troublesome.

If the Supreme Court has to decide whether it is constitutional for the states or the federal government to force people to buy health insurance, why doesn't it also have to decide whether it's constitutional to force taxpayers to pay to cover the uninsured? Charles H. Webster

Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler took a first step Tuesday toward an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in a high-stakes case that blocks police across the state from collecting DNA samples when a person is arrested in connection with a violent crime or burglary. Gansler asked Maryland's highest court to reconsider its recent ruling or allow police to continue to take the samples while the state asks the Supreme Court to step in. At issue is whether taking the samples before a conviction violates an individual's constitutional rights.

Maryland authorities have stopped collecting DNA samples from suspects arrested on violent crime and burglary charges after the state's highest court ruled the crime-fighting tool that has helped solve dozens of cold cases unconstitutional. On Friday, officials from law enforcement agencies across the state said they were acting on advice from Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler to stop the practice, pending a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gansler has not said whether he intends to appeal the Court of Appeals decision.

I have always held the Supreme Court in the highest regard, but after reading recent articles about the court if feel compelled to write. The court allowed PACS to spend whatever they wanted in our primary and general elections, usually favoring Republican candidates. And it once again has bowed to pressure from the National Rifle Association by permitting every citizen to carry a gun. Heaven help us. Now the Supreme Court is about to decimate President Barack Obama's health care plan, which would give every American the right to health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion upholding jailhouse strip searches could derail the civil claims of thousands of detainees who say they were illegally examined by Baltimore law enforcement officials, including a nurse who was arrested at gunpoint for alleged traffic violations. The sharply split 5-4 ruling, issued this month, found that bare-body inspections are appropriate to ensure safety within the general population of a jail, even for those arrested on minor offenses.

President Barack Obama's vision for health-care reform could have resulted in a much better law had it not been for congressional decrees at the start that a single-payer system was "off the table. " But guess what has appeared back on the table during the thoughtful pondering of the problem by the Supreme Court? Justice Anthony Kennedy said on March 27: "Let's assume that it could use the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single payer. How does that factor into our analysis?

Delaware Gov. Jack Markell says the state will appeal restrictions on its sports betting lottery to the U.S. Supreme Court. Markell and his aides said the state expects to file its appeal by the end of the month. The appeal will ask the Supreme Court to reverse a ruling by a federal appeals court in Philadelphia that restricts the lottery to multi-bet wagers on professional football. - From Sun staff and news services

The sub-headline to The Sun's editorial ("Obama and judicial review," April 6) asks, "Since when is the Supreme Court immune to criticism?" That question is in the grand tradition of President Barack Obama - set up a straw man and then knock him down. President Obama's unfortunate April 2 statements (and later attempts at clarification) are not criticisms of the Supreme Court but outright challenges to its authority to declare unconstitutional laws void. What critic of Mr. Obama's remarks questioned his right to criticize the court?

The sub-headline to The Sun's editorial ("Obama and judicial review," April 6) asks, "Since when is the Supreme Court immune to criticism?" That question is in the grand tradition of President Barack Obama - set up a straw man and then knock him down. President Obama's unfortunate April 2 statements (and later attempts at clarification) are not criticisms of the Supreme Court but outright challenges to its authority to declare unconstitutional laws void. What critic of Mr. Obama's remarks questioned his right to criticize the court?

With a far more contentious hearing than expected before the Supreme Court, President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) could be struck down by a sharply divided court when it rules in June. If that happens, insurance will continue to be priced beyond the means of many. It is therefore prudent to look at possible alternatives for these Americans. Fortunately, a proven model exists today in Howard County: the Healthy Howard Health Plan. With some changes to its financing structure, it could emerge as a viable option for Americans who will not be able to afford to buy insurance should the ACA be struck down.