Supreme Court

I wonder how many Americans have an understanding of what is probably the most profound consequence of the 2012 election. With several of the U.S. Supreme Court justices in their 70s, it is expected that anywhere from one to four justices will retire during the next four years, leaving vacancies to be nominated by the president who is in office at the time. Currently, the court is evenly divided between moderates and conservatives, which is a good thing so that no political ideology will consistently affect laws and life in the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue of racial preference in college admissions on Wednesday, and that ought to be a concern for those who believe such policies have provided countless opportunities for minorities - and enriched the educational experience for whites. There is a growing movement in this country to eliminate affirmative action on the grounds that it's no longer needed - or was even helpful in the first place. Granted, this can be a complex issue, and even the most liberal interpretations of the race-conscious policy acknowledge that a balance must be struck to make colleges diverse but also keep the admissions process fair and merit-based.

Corporate-sponsored groups have launched a campaign of litigation in the lower federal courts challenging the legality of the second major piece of President Barack Obama's legislative program, one that received a lot of attention in last week's first presidential debate: the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. When these cases reach the Supreme Court, we could very well see a reprise of the drama surrounding its decision on the Affordable Care Act at the end of this past term.

Even when Jeffrey Toobin is absolutely, positively, flat-out wrong, it's worth listening to what he has to say about the U.S. Supreme Court. Toobin, an Emmy Award-winning senior analyst for CNN and a staff writer for The New Yorker not only is smart, he also has a background as a practicing attorney. A few years after graduating from Harvard Law School, he was part of the prosecutorial team that tried Oliver North. For his new book, "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court," Toobin has his usual impeccable sources.

Calling DNA collection from those arrested for certain felonies a "valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes," Chief Justice John G. Roberts on Monday said there was a "fair prospect" that the nation's high court would overturn a Maryland ruling striking down the practice as unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet agreed to take on the issue, but statements made by Roberts in a four-page opinion signaled that was likely. The Maryland attorney general's office plans to file a petition asking for the court's review by mid-August.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders violates the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court cited the developmental differences between young people and adults and concluded that children and teens are different from adults for the purpose of criminal sentences. Maryland does not technically have mandatory sentencing to life without parole for minors. But for all practical purposes in our state, sentences of life with the possibility of parole have become synonymous with death in prison, contrary to the intent of sentencing judges.

Maryland is exaggerating the value of collecting DNA samples before suspects are convicted, the state's top public defender argued in a filing Friday before the U.S. Supreme Court. The state asked the nation's highest court to decide whether collecting DNA samples to tie suspects to other crimes is a violation of their constitutional rights or a viable crime-fighting tool. In response to a temporary stay issued by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Maryland Public Defender Paul DeWolfe urged the high court to uphold an April decision by the state Court of Appeals to block the collection of DNA samples after a suspect is arrested but not convicted in a violent crime, burglary or an attempt to commit such crimes.

U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.and the Supreme Court have not only upheld the Affordable Care Act, they struck down a barrier to universal health care for Americans. Looking forward from the Supreme Court's decision, by defining the cost of expanding coverage as a tax, the court has moved our thinking toward universal health care as a proper cost of the country's well-being. The Obama administration's defense of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act as a tax was widely second-guessed.

The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act surprised many. The reasoning given by the court for allowing the mandate is that it's a tax — and it's constitutional for Congress to pass a tax. While I believe that is a questionable interpretation at best, Americans now must buy health insurance or receive a tax penalty. In 2008, President Barack Obama said, "Health care should never be purchased with tax increases on middle class families. " During the lengthy debate on ACA, he stressed that it was not a tax. It seems that President Obama's promises usually have an expiration date.

Tony Lambros letter concerning the Affordable Care Act ("Justices join assault on U.S. Constitution," July 4) is so full of distortions that it is nearly impossible to point out all of them. Despite charges in the letter to the contrary, recess appointments by President Barack Obama were legally made while Congress was, in fact, in recess, contrary to the assertion in the letter. Executive orders do not and never required Congressional oversight. The executive order on contraception never involved visiting abortion clinics.