At roughly sometime in the morning EDT, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin its 2005 term. What exciting things -- besides the Anna Nicole Smith case -- are on the docket? Oh, man: there's a lot.

Today, Monday, Oct. 3, is the court's -- and John Roberts' -- new term. Roberts takes his seat on the court less than a week after being confirmed by the Senate. Today, the court will hear two oral arguments in two cases. The first is so boring that I want to punch myself. In BP, Inc. v. Alvarez et al., the Court will answer the burning question of

Whether walking that occurs between compensable pre- and post-shift clothes-changing and the time employees arrive at or depart from their actual work stations constitutes non-compensable “walking . . . to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee[s] [are] employed to perform”

Turns out that a 1947 law says that an employer is not obligated to pay an employee for the time that employee spends walking to work. But does time spent changing into a work uniform count? For thousands of years, man has been concerned with this question.

The other case that Roberts will hear on his first day on the job is Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, the Court will decide some stupid thing about taxing fuel receipts off of an Indian reservation, and whether or not this tax applies to the Prairie Band Potawtomi Nation because it sells fuel to consumers.

But the biggie comes on Wednesday: Gonzalez, et al. v. Oregon, et al.. This case has been going on since John Ashcroft first became Attorney General. Remember when he invalidated Oregon's assisted suicide law? Remember when the Supreme Court said he didn't have the power to do that? Well, now they're hearing the case. This case will decide the constitutionality of assisted suicide laws, all within Roberts' first three days in office (well, two -- Tuesday is a non-argument day). At issue is whether or not the federal Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) "prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual’s suicide, regardless of any state law purporting to authorize such distribution." So, does Oregon's voter-approved law allowing assisted suicide invalidate the Controlled Substances Act, since these substances are being used for something that is legal under state law? Since this is a conservative court, don't bet on it: federal laws always trump state laws, regardless of intent. In this way, Ashcroft tried to use the Controlled Substances Act to foist his personal religious beliefs about assisted suicide on the voters of Oregon. Now Ashcroft has to take up the reigns of the case since he is the current Attorney General.

I'm excited about the Oregon case; I was turned off to Ashcroft ever since I read about what he did. Oh, it was long ago: the year was 2001. I was a freshman at Miami, eating breakfast at Ovations, a subsidiary of Scott Dining Hall. And it burned me up that Ashcroft would try crap like that because he's a crazy Christian. But I hold out hope that the Supreme Court will rule his actions illegal.