{"id":271,"date":"2010-04-09T15:39:47","date_gmt":"2010-04-09T15:39:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html"},"modified":"2010-04-09T15:39:47","modified_gmt":"2010-04-09T15:39:47","slug":"supreme-court-retirement-here","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Retirement: Here We Go Again"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span> <\/p>\n

Barry, the announcement was expected and as Justice John Paul Stevens <\/a>notified the White House that he is stepping down after this term at the age of 90 – and more than 30 years at the high court – it’s likely that this summer will be an interesting one as President Obama gets set to name his second appointment to the high court.   <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>Justice Stevens has been a leading liberal voice on the Supreme Court and his imprint on some of the most important church\/state cases is very clear.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/p>\n

Justice Stevens was the sole dissenter in Westside Community Schools v. Mergens<\/i>.  <\/span>In Mergens<\/i>, the Court upheld the federal Equal Access Act.  <\/span>The Act prohibited public secondary schools that receive federal funds and create a “limited open forum” for student groups from denying equal access to students who want to meet on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content discussed at the group’s meetings. A limited open forum exists whenever a school allows one or more “noncurriculum related student groups” to meet on campus, but the Act did not define the term “noncurriculum related student group.”  <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Justice Stevens was the lone dissenting Justice. He suggested that the Act would violate the Establishment Clause if legislators voted for the Act to promote religious speech in public schools, even though the Act on its face did nothing more than provide equal access for student religious organizations.  <\/span>He also argued that the Act should be much more narrowly interpreted than the plurality had interpreted it. In Justice Stevens’ view, “an extracurricular student organization is ‘noncurriculum related’ if it has as its purpose (or as part of its purpose) the advocacy of partisan theological, political, or ethical views. A school that admits at least one such club has apparently made the judgment that students are better off if the student community is permitted to, and perhaps even encouraged to, compete along ideological lines.” Thus, under Justice Stevens’ interpretation of the Act, public schools could recognize a large number of student clubs such as a swim team, French club, chess club, or scuba diving club, without being required to grant equal access to student religious clubs.<\/span><\/p>\n

He was also the lone dissenter in Schiedler v. NOW<\/i>, a case in which <\/i><\/span>the Supreme definitively rejected all of NOW’s claims when it ruled that the use of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute – a law designed to combat drug dealers and organized crime – was wrongly used against the pro-life movement. The decision was a tremendous victory for those who engage in social protests. The Supreme Court forcefully rejected the argument that pro-life demonstrators were racketeers engaged in extortion. The decision removed a cloud that had been hanging over the pro-life movement for 15 years, and effectively shut the door on using RICO against the pro-life movement. The ACLJ argued that a non-violent pro-life sit-in at an abortion business does not qualify as federal criminal extortion.  However, Justice <\/span>Stevens thought the Court construed the RICO far too narrowly.<\/span><\/p>\n

President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Stevens is unlikely to change the current ideological split on the Supreme Court.  <\/span>But I do believe that this appointment really represents more than just replacing one vote on the court.  <\/span>With a replacement who is likely to serve for 30 or 40 years, it’s clear this replacement will have a long-term impact on judicial philosophy and likely play a determining factor in decisions for decades to come.<\/span><\/p>\n

There’s been much speculation<\/a> already about who President Obama would nominate when Justice Stevens retired.  <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>Justice Stevens has given the President plenty of time to act.  <\/span>It will be an interesting summer.<\/span><\/p>\n

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click <\/font>here<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  Barry, the announcement was expected and as Justice John Paul Stevens notified the White House that he is stepping down after this term at the age of 90 – and more than 30 years at the high court – it’s likely that this summer will be an interesting one as President Obama gets set…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,69,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-congress","category-supreme-court","category-white-house"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Retirement: Here We Go Again - Lynn v. Sekulow<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Retirement: Here We Go Again - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"  Barry, the announcement was expected and as Justice John Paul Stevens notified the White House that he is stepping down after this term at the age of 90 – and more than 30 years at the high court – it’s likely that this summer will be an interesting one as President Obama gets set…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-09T15:39:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Retirement: Here We Go Again - Lynn v. Sekulow","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Retirement: Here We Go Again - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"  Barry, the announcement was expected and as Justice John Paul Stevens notified the White House that he is stepping down after this term at the age of 90 – and more than 30 years at the high court – it’s likely that this summer will be an interesting one as President Obama gets set…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2010-04-09T15:39:47+00:00","author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html","name":"Supreme Court Retirement: Here We Go Again - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-09T15:39:47+00:00","dateModified":"2010-04-09T15:39:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-retirement-here.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Retirement: Here We Go Again"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/","name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","description":"A debate blog about church, state, faith and politics with Jay Sekulow and Barry W. Lynn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf","name":"Jay Sekulow","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","caption":"Jay Sekulow"},"description":"Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law.  He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice.  As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity. An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation.  In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses.  In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.  And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.  Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.  The ACLJ, under Sekulow's direction, is involved in public interest and public policy issues working to protect religious and constitutional liberties. In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has \"led the way\" in Christian legal advocacy.  In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America and called the ACLJ \"a powerful counterweight\" to the ACLU.  Business Week said the ACLJ is \"the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.\"  Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal.  In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \"100 Most Influential Lawyers\" in the United States (1994, 1997).  He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as \"The Public Sector 45\" named by The American Lawyer (January\/February 1997).  The magazine said the designation represents \"45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.\" Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations.  Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet.  Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS.  He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member.  Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.  In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court. He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles. Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/author\/jsekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}