• Heritage Action
  • More
Jul 07

Scholars and Scribes Review the Rulings: The Supreme Court's 2002-2003 Term

The Heritage Foundation's Lehrman Auditorium

The Supreme Court term that just recessed for the summer included many far-reaching decisions - from the Michigan racial preference cases and the Texas sodomy decision to new rulings on the first amendment and civil liberties. The ink was not yet dry on the opinions before the arguments over the wisdom and significance of many of those decisions began. Were racial preferences restricted, sanctioned, or left half-pregnant? What does the Beaumont campaign finance ruling mean for the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, which the Court has scheduled a special September sitting to consider? Did federalism suffer a setback? Did the Court follow its recent trends in first amendment and civil liberties decisions or chart a dramatic new course? The end of a Supreme Court term often inspires as many questions as answers, including whether there are likely to be any retirements on the High Court any time soon.

Legal scholars and Supreme Court watchers will spend years wrestling with those questions - but the process begins at The Heritage Foundation. Please join us on Monday, July 7 at 10 a.m., when a panel of legal scholars and a panel of Supreme Court correspondents will discuss these issues and more in its fourth annual Scholars and Scribes Review of the Supreme Court Term.

More About the Speakers

Panel One:

Douglas Kmiec
Dean, The Catholic University of America,
Columbus School of Law
Jonathan Turley
Professor of Public Interest Law, GWU Law School Director, Environmental Law Advocacy Center
Charles Cooper
Former U.S. Assistant Attorney General, OLC
Current Supreme Court Appellate Litigator

Panel Two:

Charles Lane
Supreme Court Correspondent,
The Washington Post
David Savage
Supreme Court Correspondent,
The Los Angeles Times
Mike Kirkland
Supreme Court Correspondent,
United Press International