In July, evangelist Pat Robertson launched what he described as a “prayer offensive,” formally known as Operation Supreme Court Freedom. On his television show, the 700 Club, he instructed viewers to kneel down and pray for God to remove a liberal justice from the high court.
“One justice is 83 years old,” Robertson said, “another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?”
He then added: “Retire permanently! Bwuu ha ha haaa!”
Well, I am happy to report that all nine justices survived the wrath of God this summer and on Monday returned for the official beginning of the 2003-04 term. They will be glad they did, for this year promises to be another wild ride. Separation of church and state, capital punishment, the USA PATRIOT Act, medical marijuana and campaign finance reform are just a few of the high-profile issues that the Supremes are expected to tackle before the year is over.
In the coming months I will be writing about these cases, but first I would like to take a brief look back at the top five wackiest, zaniest or just plain stupid Supreme Court decisions from last year. Frankly, it is hard to narrow it down to five, but here they are:

1. Lockyer v. Andrade

and Ewing v. California
Twice the Supreme Court upheld California’s “three strikes and you’re out” statute (originally known as “Do not pass go, do not collect $200” statute) by a 5-4 margin. In the first case, Gary Ewing received 25 years to life for stealing golf clubs worth $1,200. In the second case, Leandro Andrade received the same sentence for stealing videotapes worth $153. Oh well, look on the bright side: Most Americans don’t know about the Eighth Amendment anyway. I’m sure they won’t miss it.

2. Kevin Nigel Stanford
The court refused to review this case involving the use of capital punishment on a prisoner who committed his crime as a minor. Seven international treaties prohibit the practice, yet in 2002 the state of Texas executed more child offenders than the rest of the world combined.
In another capital punishment case two years ago, the court ruled that killing the mentally ill was unconstitutional. My advice: Convince the justices that minors are mentally ill. I’m looking at all the Timberlake fans.

3. Miller-El v. Cockrell
In this case, the court ruled for a black inmate who claimed that Texas prosecutors used racial bias when they struck 10 of 11 black jurors from his trial. The ruling was 8-1. Who was the only dissenting justice? You got it: Clarence Thomas. This guy is about as black as Michael Jackson.

4. Virginia v. Black.
A Ku Klux Klan leader, ironically named Barry Black, was found guilty of violating Virginia’s anti-cross burning statute during a rally. The ACLU hired a black lawyer to defend Black and Black’s right to anti-black speech.
Anyhoo, in a 6-3 vote — where only Justice Thomas defended the anti-cross burning statute in its entirety (I’m sorry I compared you to Michael Jackson. I take it all back!) — the Court ruled that cross burning is OK as long as it is done without the intent to intimidate. So if you are burning a cross for the purpose of, say, roasting marshmallows during a camping trip, then Godspeed my friend, Godspeed.

5. Lawrence v. Texas
This was the case that really lit a fire under Pat Robertson’s cross. In a shocking 5-4 decision, the court voted to decriminalize all acts of private, consensual and noncommercial sex on privacy grounds, putting a kibosh on the 13 remaining state laws banning sodomy.
Even though Oregon’s law was repealed in 1972, it was still good news for Oregonians and the nearly 90 percent of adults who engage in sodomy nationwide, according to researchers P. Blumstelm and P. Schwartz. It was especially good news for Idahoans who faced a potential five years to life for anything from fellatio to feuille de rose.
Justice Kennedy, by choosing to argue on privacy rather than on equal protection grounds, reversed the high court’s controversial decision in 1986’s Bowers v. Hardwick. (I swear, I am not making that name up. It seems like every sodomy case has a suggestive title; for example, Bottoms v. Bottoms from Virginia, or State v. Limberhand, in which the Idaho Supreme Court freed a man who was arrested for masturbating in a public toilet stall.)
The oral argument phase of Lawrence saw its share of juvenile behavior. At one point, Justice Breyer received roaring laughter with his double entendre: “I would like to hear your straight answer.” Later, Justice Scalia compared homosexuality to “flagpole sitting.” (For those of you born after the Depression, flagpole sitting is the lost art of sitting on top of a flagpole before a crowd of onlookers, a fad that swept the nation during the ’20s).
But my favorite moment was when the attorney defending Texas argued that its law, which singled out homosexual behavior in its definition of sodomy, did not discriminate against gays because it banned same-sex intercourse for heterosexuals as well.
Even Scalia had to crack a smile at
that one.