Justices could unleash election revolution

WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 (UPI) -- Five men on the U.S. Supreme Court may or may not be ready to set the American political process on its ear, striking down with extreme prejudice federal restrictions on corporate campaign contributions.

The vehicle for such a revolution could come from a case that was reheard Sept. 9, weeks before the court officially begins its 2009 term on the first Monday in October.

The case involves the 2008 presidential campaign and an attack "documentary" called "Hillary: The Movie," which backers wanted to make available as an "on demand" cable movie. Federal courts ruled the film, partly funded by unnamed corporations, violated the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, which among other things bans the broadcast or cable transmission of "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or unions in the 30 days before a presidential primary and the 60 days before the general election.

Three members of the Supreme Court -- conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy -- have been long on record as wanting to reverse the 2005 precedent upholding McCain-Feingold and an earlier 2000 precedent upholding corporate funding restrictions.

During argument in the "Hillary" case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito made comments from the bench indicating they too were thinking about striking down the precedents.

The four members of the court's liberal bloc, including apparently Justice Sonia Sotomayor attending her first argument, indicated they believe a ruling should be as narrow as possible with as little impact as possible.

Supporters of the restrictions say if they are removed, the political process could drown in a flood of corporate money. Opponents of the restrictions say they chill free speech.

Though there appear to be five justices, a narrow majority, in favor of striking down the precedents, court-watchers expecting a slam-dunk have been fooled before by comments from the bench. A decision in the case should come in the early days of the new term.

The high court begins its new term with changes, but many things remain the same.

Sotomayor, who heard her first Supreme Court argument Sept. 9, has succeeded Justice David Souter, who stepped down at the end of June. Sotomayor is expected to join the liberal bloc on the court, now consisting of Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

That would mean the balance of the court remains the same, with four liberals facing four conservatives, with the moderately conservative Kennedy being the swing vote. Most analysts say the court will continue to produce 5-4 rulings on major cases.

Meanwhile, at 89, Stevens has ignited a small storm of speculation by signing on only one clerk for the new term so far. Justices are allowed six, and Stevens normally hires four, doing much of the case reviews himself instead of relying on what's called the "cert pool" -- a pool of clerks from each justice who narrow down the thousands of cases flowing into the Supreme Court seeking review via a "writ of certiorari."

The single hire has raised speculation Stevens is ready to retire. Retired justices are allowed one clerk.

But Stevens, probably the justice most at home in his own skin and impervious to outside influences, hasn't commented on the prospect of retirement and so far is keeping his own counsel.

As for other highlights in the aborning 2009 term, the high court will likely be asked to determine whether U.S. officials can freely transfer terror detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to their home countries, where many prisoners say they could face torture. The powerful U.S. appeals court in Washington ruled in April federal judges generally could not interfere with such transfers.

Closer to home, the Supreme Court was asked to block a three-judge panel's order that would free 46,000 prisoners because of overcrowding in the California prisons. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other officials asked the high court Sept. 5 for a stay, which was denied Sept. 11.

The justices refused the stay, but in refusing noted that the three-judge panel had blocked the implementation of its own order until the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to review the process -- leaving open the option of the high court hearing argument, not on the order itself, but on how the order is carried out.

Perhaps one of the most controversial issues in the early part of the 2009 term is scheduled for argument in two cases Nov. 9, Graham vs. Florida and Sullivan vs. Florida.

The issue? Whether it is constitutional to send a juvenile to prison for life when no one has been killed. Does such a sentence for a teenager violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment?

The Equal Justice Initiative says Joe Sullivan is one of only two 13-year-olds in the United States sentenced to life without parole for a 1989 offense that did not involve a homicide, and the DNA evidence from his rape charge was destroyed by officials before it could be used as evidence. The group says Sullivan is mentally retarded and in a wheelchair.

Terrance Graham was 16 when he was convicted in a store robbery in which the manager was hit by a pipe. Pleading guilty, he was placed on probation, but was arrested later on a home invasion charge. A judge ruled him guilty of violating his probation in the home invasion and sentenced him to life in prison on the original robbery conviction.

The Supreme Court narrowly ruled in 2005 that convicted defendants could not receive the death penalty if they committed their crimes as juveniles. But the Equal Justice Initiative claims that even with that protection, the United States is still the only country that sentences juveniles to die in prison.