COURT IS BACK IN SESSION

Numerous important issues confront high court justices

The first Monday of October signaled the opening of the U.S. Supreme
Court's 2004-05 term. The justices, who are starting their 11th term
together -- the longest such stretch since 1812-1823 -- first heard oral
arguments in an expedited case involving federal sentencing guidelines.

In the coming months, the court will have the opportunity to stand up for
the Bill of Rights on issues involving drug-sniffing dogs at traffic stops,
terminally ill patients who grow and use marijuana to ease their suffering,
mandatory government-sponsored advertising campaigns promoting agricultural
products and protectionist state laws prohibiting the direct shipment of wine.

In addition, the justices will finally tackle the issue of municipalities
abusing the power of eminent domain to transfer property from one private
owner to another. The case, out of Connecticut, offers the court the
opportunity to reinvigorate the notion of private property rights, a
cornerstone of liberty and freedom.

Other matters before the high court this session include the controversy
over executing killers who committed their crimes while under the age of
18, the constitutionality of racially segregating prison inmates and the
extent of immigrants' rights.

The court's docket will expand over the coming months, and many observers
expect it to eventually include appeals surrounding Oregon's assisted
suicide law and Florida's ban on gay adoptions.

Jesse Choper, a Cal-Berkeley law professor, told The Associated Press that
under the leadership of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the justices
"certainly wade in where lots of others hesitate to tread."

Ironic, then, that the court's biggest challenge may actually be a case the
justices will be loathe to address: another presidential election dispute.

If the Bush-Kerry race hinges on just a few electoral votes, expect the
losing side to trot out the high-powered attorneys. Democrats are already
whispering about nonexistent GOP plots to prevent minority members from
voting, thus planting the seeds for challenges over that manufactured issue.

In addition, a challenge is certain if a Colorado ballot initiative passes
asking residents to split the state's electoral vote. And, once again, if
the election is close, the result of such a case could swing the result one
way or the other.

After the 2000 debacle, you can bet the justices -- regardless of their
personal politics -- are praying that the Nov. 2 election produces a
clear-cut winner, one way or the other.