In the U.S. Supreme Court term just ended, an individual right to possess guns was secured by just one vote. The legal underpinning of the Bush administration’s Guantnamo detention policy was shattered by one vote. And state efforts to expand the death penalty beyond crimes of homicide were rejected by one vote.
Modern attempts to make the Supreme Court a presidential election-year issue usually track the success of third-party presidential candidates. But as the 2007-08 term’s headline cases demonstrate in this election year, who sits on the court and who appoints them matter.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
