Where I Stand: Difficult to tag high court

Friday, July 19, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

The Wall Street Journal brags that the "Supreme Court Term Proves Favorable for Business." One example the newspaper gives to back up this statement is the 5-4 decision that said the $4 million a BMW buyer had been awarded was too much money for the damaged paint job done on his "new" vehicle. Personally, I thought the decision was one in which common sense came to the forefront.

The WSJ does point out: "Corporate efforts to get rid of older, better-paid workers got a boost last month when the justices ruled in a case involving aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corp. The high court decided that employers may require buyout recipients to promise not to sue the company. But when management goes overboard -- say, by tricking workers into transferring to a new subsidiary that is likely to fail and then does, killing their benefits -- the victims may go to court, the justices said in a 6-3 decision in March. This ruling did little for the reputation of the loser in the case, farm- and industrial-equipment manufacturer Varity Corp."

Law enforcement received several boosts from the Supreme Court, including the 8-1 ruling that declared the prosecution of criminals and the seizing of their property isn't double jeopardy in the eyes of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia wrote: "In my view, the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits successive prosecution, not successive punishment." Chief Justice Rehnquist said: "Civil forfeiture, we hold, does not constitute punishment for purposes of the double-jeopardy clause."

Law enforcement's battle against drugs was also enhanced with the unanimous ruling allowing the police to use minor traffic violations as a reason to stop a vehicle and then conducting a more complete search without a warrant. Convicted criminals didn't do much better when death-row inmates were told they could be limited in the number of appeals they may file. This didn't restrict their right to make direct appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The designation of voting districts, using race as the "predominant" factor for their design, was declared unconstitutional. This ruling upset many civil rights attorneys, but they were smiling about the rulings against Virginia Military Institute's single-sex education program and the prohibition of Colorado voters from banning laws that protect gays from discrimination. However, by allowing a lower court ruling against the affirmative action admission policy of the University of Texas law school to stand, the court brought back frowns to the faces of the civil rights advocates.

The VMI decision, like most Supreme Court actions, creates as many questions as it gives answers. The Washington Post points out: "The court has reached the right decision in this case, but it is Justice Antonin Scalia's lonely dissent that commands attention. He has no problem with single-sex public institutions. But beyond that, he excoriates his colleagues for having set a new and confining standard for assessing gender discrimination. Their opinion, he asserts, claims to recognize the validity of differentiating between the sexes. But it will make it virtually impossible to defend those distinctions against charges of unconstitutionality. Justice Scalia maintains that this ruling sounds a death knell for private single-sex colleges, for special public school programs for boys and for any other gender distinction in the law that cannot withstand the strict scrutiny review now applied to race distinctions. We hope his fears are exaggerated, as the majority claimed. He's right that this remains an open question for another day."

There's little doubt as to where the justices stand on a broad interpretation of free speech. The court ruled against a federal law restricting indecent programming on cable television; struck down laws that prohibited advertising of beer and liquor prices; protected the rights of independent contractors to openly criticize government officials and support their political opponents; and, finally, declared unconstitutional the federal campaign law that restricts how much money political parties can spend promoting their views.

I find it almost impossible to put a political tag on the 1995-96 term of the Supreme Court. About the only labels that make much sense would recognize the strong support the court has given the broad interpretation of free speech and equal treatment under the law.

My reading of publications of both the left and right has been most interesting during this term of the court. The newspapers and magazines took turns crying about or applauding different court decisions. When all has been said and done, none of the publications can honestly put a solid political label on this term of the Supreme Court.

The 1995-96 term of the U.S. Supreme Court has been interesting to say the least. I can hardly wait to see what it will do in the upcoming 1996-97 term.