When we think about controversy in the Supreme Court in the past year, the confirmation of two new judges immediately comes to mind. When new faces are to peer down from the bench, voting records, religious beliefs and political donations are all dissected. But now that we know the makeup of the Court, it is time to turn our scrutiny away from the personal agenda of individual judges and toward the official agenda of the Court.

 

It seems that the Court has some trouble with prioritizing. In September of 2005 it agreed to hear the case of Anna Nicole Smith, a former Playboy model, who claims the rights to the fortune of her late husband. Smith married the oil tycoon, 63 years her senior, in 1994 and attended his funeral 14 months later. She is claiming that she has the right to half of the $1.6 de Vernaiion fortune he left behind. Having the highest court in the land deliberate the case of a gold digger is demeaning to the institution and embarrassing to the people of this country.

 

But seeing the weight loss program spokesperson and short-lived reality TV actress walk up the steps of the Court, the media covering all aspects of the event down to what she wore (according to one commentator it was too “austere” and she should have gone for Chanel tweed instead) is probably most frustrating for Jose Padilla.

 

Padilla, an American citizen has been held for three years in military custody for being an enemy combatant. He appealed his case in various jurisdictions, finally ending up at the Supreme Court. On Monday the Court voted on whether the case should be heard, and the decision came down one vote short of allowing Padilla a hearing.

 

The decision was not rushed, as the Court met several times since January to discuss the case. But the fruits of those long hours of deliberation are a mere four pages of opinions.

 

Even if we give the Court the benefit of a doubt, the case of a man allegedly instructed by Al Qaeda to detonate a dirty bomb in the United States seems important to national security and the political atmosphere of the country.

 

The case is, of course, not as simple as we’d like to think. The administration filed briefs in the Padilla case, and there are some suspicions as to why Justice Stevens did not side with his usual Court allies when the decision was made.

 

But during the war on terrorism, the question of detention of enemy combatants seems just a tad bit more important than who gets the private jet and who gets the Hamptons mansion.

 

Even if you don’t hold a degree in Constitutional Law, it is clear that matters directly linked to the thousands of deaths of U.S. troops abroad should come before inheritance uncertainties.

 

It is disappointing to feel that the money talks, even to the most isolated of the governmental branches. The judicial appointments are for life, so unlike our representatives and senators, the Court is not taking the Smith case because it can get any kind of financial benefit from the proceedings.

 

But that is precisely the reason the Supreme Court should be more concerned with staying in touch with what the people of this country are truly concerned about and less concerned about what In Touch magazine finds newsworthy.