A new era for the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court began a new era yesterday with three women serving together for the first time. Elena Kagan, taking her place at the end of the bench, joined quickly in the give-and-take.

In a scene that will repeat itself over the next few months, Kagan left the courtroom while the other justices heard a case in which she will take no part. She has taken herself out of 24 pending cases because of her work as the Obama administration's solicitor general before joining the court.

As the court opened its new term on the traditional first Monday in October, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her second year on the court, sat at the opposite end of the bench from Kagan, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined in 1993, sat midway between Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts, who occupies the center chair. Seating is based on seniority.

The new court has four New Yorkers, Antonin Scalia and the three women. All nine justices got their law degrees from Ivy League schools, and all but Kagan served as federal appeals court judges.

For the first time, there are no Protestants among the justices - six Catholics and three Jews.

The substitution of the liberal-leaning Kagan for the like-minded Stevens is not expected to make a difference in the ideologically tinged cases in which four conservatives face off against four liberals with Justice Anthony Kennedy the decisive vote. Kennedy sides more often with the conservatives.

But none of that matters when the court hears cases like the first one of its new term, a bankruptcy dispute with no evident ideological issue.

The justices were trying to figure out whether someone in bankruptcy who owned a car outright could still shield some income from creditors by claiming an allowance for a car payment. Like many seemingly easy issues that come to the court, this one had divided federal appeals courts.

At one point, Kagan wondered whether someone with a car that had 200,000 miles on it "and was going to break down in the next five years" could plausibly claim the allowance.

No, said Deanne Maynard, the lawyer for the credit card company that is trying to recoup some of the nearly $33,000 it is owed by Jason Ransom. Ransom's decision to claim a $471 monthly allowance for car payments though he owes no money on his 2004 Toyota Camry landed the case before the Supreme Court.