WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court returns Monday from a long winter's break.
From the outside, it often looks like the justices are returning from a long winter's nap. It's a cozy notion, but the surface serenity, the sheer reasonableness of the legal profession, hides the inner tensions of the institution.
Like the country, the court is still closely divided into its right and left wings, with a slight advantage going to the conservatives.
Much has been made of the political division in the court. It would be nice to say that the division isn't as deep as most writers say it is. But in all truth the ideological rift is profound and predictable and it might as well be carved in stone.
I like to think of the court's division as a corollary of Kirkland's theory of presidential politics -- made up by me, and therefore ruled by me to be eminently obvious and sensible. I've offered it free to presidential campaigns, but so far no takers.
About 40 percent of the country will vote for a Democratic candidate, no matter what. Another 40 percent will vote for a Republican, no matter what. Those in the remaining 20 percent divide up and vote for the candidate they think they can stand to listen to for the next four years.
In other words, find a charismatic personality, tell him or her what to say -- always appealing to a voter's emotions rather than the intellect -- make sure the candidate sticks to the script and you've got a winner.
The court resembles the electorate in that its left wing will vote in a predictable way, and the right wing also, at least in constitutional cases that can be defined by judicial or political philosophy
Justice John John Paul Stevens, the most senior member of the court, quietly leads the left wing, which is also composed of Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist leads the conservative wing, with vocal support from Justice Antonin Scalia. Sometimes, when Rehnquist lets him, it appears that Scalia believes he's chief. But it's really Rehnquist.
With them on most questions is Justice Clarence Thomas.
Following the right wing in most cases is Justice Anthony Kennedy, with some exceptions. Kennedy will bolt if he believes a core constitutional value is being short-changed. Kennedy can often be the deciding vote when he chooses, but he's making that choice less and less as the 78-year-old Rehnquist gets closer to retirement.
Who knows if lightning will strike from the Republican White House?
Kennedy, of course, would be anathema to the president's core constituency because of his occasional support of abortion rights, and would never be a choice for Rehnquist's replacement. But Kennedy, like most of the justices, lives in an insulated world.
That usually makes the court divide up 4-4.
The deciding vote, as so many analysts will tell you, will more and more belong to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a conservative but always striving to find the middle ground.
When the Justice Department filed a friend-of-the-court brief earlier this year in the University of Michigan affirmative action case, with heavy guidance from the White House, it did so with O'Connor in mind.
The university uses race as a factor when admitting undergraduate students or candidates for its Law School.
Instead of rejecting diversity outright, which many true-believers wanted it to do, the administration embraced the concept in its brief. It simply argued that it is unconstitutional to use race to achieve it.
Instead, the administration pointed to admissions programs in Texas, Florida and California colleges which automatically accept a top percentage of graduates from each state high school.
Since many high schools are overwhelmingly black or Hispanic -- with the rest mostly white -- the end result is diversity.
Whether O'Connor will buy this may become apparent when she comments from the bench during arguments in the case April 1.
--
White most federal buildings in Washington have been shut up tight for security reasons during this season of the orange terror alert, the Supreme Court has been welcoming visitors in much the way it always has.
For many student groups, it offers the only close up look at a seat of federal power.
Visiting the court became a little risky this week after the heavy snowfall last weekend. Ice collecting on the court roof has been sliding off in sheets, sometimes on sidewalks frequented by the public. If you're visiting the court over the next few days, or any time after a snowstorm: Heads up.
The court has two inner courtyards on the lower roof that are frequented by staff. One sturdy bench popular with smokers was struck by a sliding sheet of ice and broken in two. Fortunately, no one was sitting on it at the time.
One more reason why smoking may be dangerous to your health.
--
Mike Kirkland is UPI's senior legal correspondent, and has been covering the Supreme Court and other parts of the legal community for a decade.
