This will likely go to the entire US Supreme Court. How will they side?

[CoffeeCat]

A legal/political pundit (I think it was Jeffrey Toobin) on CNN just said that the entire US Supreme Court will most likely hear this case.

Toobin said that Justice Kennedy, who has jurisdiction, would not decide this on his own--given the "national importance" of this case.

So, if Toobin is correct, on what side of this issue would each Justice most likely land?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Ther have already declined to hear the case (once?).

[HereSince1628]

I thought twice...but it's always about the issues, this time there

is that stupid new law to consider. I don't know if that will change things or not.

[rpannier]

2. Probably the same way they voted previously

It's unlikely they will see this any differently now than they did before. I don't know what the decision was last week, but I guess it will fall that way again.

[tuvor]

3. I thought the SC wasn't interested in taking the case up.

Didn't they already have that opportunity once before?

[bryant69]

4. Really?

I would think they would want to avoid this particular case.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. I don't know how likely they are to review it.

They rejected it once, and not much has changed in the interim.

[meegbear]

6. From salon.com "War Room"

<snip>
The Supreme Court declined several opportunities to get involved in the Schiavo case before Congress intervened, and it may well do so this time, too. While the religious right undoubtedly has high hopes that Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia will grant the relief other judges have refused, such optimism could be misplaced. In a 1990 case involving Nancy Cruzan, a young woman left dependent on a feeding tube after a car accident, Scalia expressed his own discomfort over judicial involvement in end-of-life decisions.

Scalia said in the Cruzan case that he would like to see the Supreme Court "announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field." Noting that American law has always left to the states the power to prevent suicide, "including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures to preserve one's life," Scalia said that the "point at which life becomes 'worthless,' and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become 'extraordinary' or 'inappropriate,' are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory."

And even if Scalia and his colleagues want to get involved in the Schiavo matter, it's not clear how they could order anything beyond a very temporary re-insertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. In their federal case, Schiavo's parents argue that the state courts of Florida denied their daughter various procedural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. But as Knight-Ridder observes, not one of the federal judges who has considered the parents' case so far has seen much merit in those arguments; even the two 11th Circuit judges who said they would have ordered the re-insertion of Schiavo's feeding tube did so because the consequence of not re-inserting the tube was so grave -- and not because they believed that Schiavo's parents made a strong showing on their constitutional claims.

Schiavo's parents may be able to persuade five Supreme Court justices that the harm that an injunction would avoid -- their daughter's certain death -- is so great that even the slimmest chance that they'll succeed on the merits of their case justifies the entry of the order they seek. But even if they secure that victory, it likely would be a relatively short-lived one. If federal judges, in their final analysis, reach the same conclusions that they've reached so far, Schiavo's parents will ultimately lose on their constitutional claims, and the feeding tube will come out again.

[sendero]

7. If the Supreme Court..

... wants to trash any last shred of credibility they have, then they will take this case.

I don't think they will. On the merits of the LAW, this is a no brainer and that is why scads of other courts have unanimously ruled the same way.

[bowens43]

8. I don't think they'll hear it but if they do

I think that the rulling will be very one sided in favor of the husband. Possibly 9-0 or 8-1.

[CoffeeCat]

9. Toobin said that...

Justice Kennedy, the judge who would decide if the full USSC hears this case--might not want to speak for the entire USSC on this issue.

Toobin went on to say that since has been elevated into the national spotlight--Kennedy may not feel comfortable rejecting the case on his own. He may decide to give the justices a chance to make decisions on their own.

Who knows. Toobin was just speculating.

I thought he made a decent point though. When the Supreme Court refused to hear the case before--the national attention was not as great as it is now.

[On the Road]

10. I Think Kennedy Wants to Avoid It

but the Court may get sucked in anyway. If so, I think they'll uphold previous decisions. I don't think GOP arguments hold much water legally.

And even if you think Schaivo is alive, to paraphrase Scalia, if the decision is properly arrived at, mere evidence of life is not enough to prevent the court's decisions from being carried out.

[adwon]

11. Why bother?

The fact that the political branches are excited should add incentive to leave this case alone. This is one of those times where denying cert, repeatedly, should clear up potential confusion on just how the Court feels about the issue.

If the Court wants to take one of these cases, it should do so at a later time. It's too much of a circus right now to expect anyone to view any kind of a ruling without a fair amount of emotion.

[Walt Starr]

12. My bet is they sit on the case with no judgement

until after Terri Shiavo passes away. Then they declare the case moot.

It's the ultimate nose thumbing to Congress.

[Lex]

13. US SUPREME COURT WILL NOT HEAR THIS CASE.

Denied.

[Walt Starr]

14. Is that a prediction or a proclamation? n/t

[Lex]

15. both?

Breaking on CNN.