• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

In this artist’s rendering, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts Jr., center, is

With scant paper trails behind them, President Bush’s two picks for the Supreme Court have left many unsure which way the pair leans on various issues impacting the nation’s schools.

Many law experts agree that the already-confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and the newly nominated Harriet Miers could sway the court on a range of issues including prayer in public schools, the use of affirmative action and campus military recruitment.

One issue expected to reach the Supreme Court again in coming years is prayer in public schools, which the court has ruled against decisively – even in less clear cases like prayer before high school graduations and football games.

Though both picks are said to be deeply religious – Roberts is a Catholic and Miers is an evangelical Christian – some are unsure what role faith will play in the decisions they make on the bench.

“They personally might have all kinds of positive views about religion but I don’t think they really let that affect their ruling on religion,” said USC law Professor Charles Whitebread.

But recently released documents written by Roberts could prove more telling of the new chief justice’s school prayer leanings.

As a White House lawyer in 1985, Roberts wrote in support of school prayer, adding that allowing the banned practice would be “within the constitutional power of Congress.”

Though UCLA law Professor Jonathan Varat said reinstated school prayer would be “surprising,” he added that with Miers and Roberts on the Supreme Court, there could be a greater “allowance for religion in public places.”

This could result in more leeway for religious expression, like recently disputed displays of the Ten Commandments, at schools and other public places.

Another issue that could affect UCLA students – and college students across the nation – is campus military recruitment.

After a recent legal struggle between military recruiters and some of the nation’s top law schools who are opposed to the military’s discriminatory policy toward gays, legal experts expect a Supreme Court decision in the coming months.

The academic freedom battle revolves around the Solomon Amendment, a 1996 measure that allows the federal government to take funding away from colleges that deny campus access to military recruiters.

The debate comes as the war in Iraq has sharply increased the military’s need for new recruits.

Though the two Court picks have said or written little on the topic, some expect Roberts and Miers to rule on the side of the military given what little is already known of their conservative political leanings.

“I suspect that they’re going to think that Congress has the power to take money away if you don’t do what Congress wants you to do,” Whitebread said.

Because both picks appear to be strict constitutionalists, meaning they will likely adhere more closely to precedent, some expect them to have subtle impact on the court’s direction.

“What I find inconceivable is that there would be a radical revolution,” said UCLA political science Professor Thomas Schwartz.

“It’s a matter of where you draw certain fuzzy lines. You’re not going to see anything exciting,” he said.

Regardless of their personal leanings coming into the Supreme Court, many law experts agree that, with time on the bench, justices’ views are liable to shift as other justices have in the past.

Retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whose vacancy Miers was nominated to fill, joined the court opposed to affirmative action, a stance she reversed after years on the bench.

“There’s a tendency in all of us to take certain hard line positions in the abstract but when you see real cases your position changes,” Whitebread said.