« Law - In landmarking, Daley believes nothing's sacred | Main | Ind. Law - Some other 2005 bills of interest »

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Law - More Supreme Court stories today

"The justices who took their seats for yesterday's hearing gave a glimpse of a future Supreme Court." reads the lead to a story in the Washington Post today by Dana Milbank. More:

Introduced as "the associate justices of the Supreme Court" -- the chief justice is too ill to attend oral arguments -- only seven of the court's nine members took their places on the bench. In addition to the expected absence of William H. Rehnquist because of his thyroid cancer, the court's John Paul Stevens, 84, was also missing.

Sandra Day O'Connor, presiding over the court for the first time, temporarily put liberals' fears to rest: Stevens's absence owed not to illness but to a canceled flight. Still, the two empty chairs, belonging to the court's two oldest and longest-serving members, served as a reminder of the uncertainty surrounding the court's future composition. Not a single justice in the chamber predated the Reagan presidency. * * *

But yesterday's arguments -- in a pair of important property rights cases -- suggested that even significant changes in the court's composition may not automatically translate into major shifts in its sentiment. As they grilled property rights advocates yesterday, the justices, regardless of ideology, displayed a reluctance to break with precedents and to disrupt the status quo. * * *

The tone of oral arguments is not always predictive of the ruling. And Rehnquist, often a private-property advocate, may still participate in deliberations in the case. But if the skeptical hearing of the property rights cases yesterday was any indication, the Supreme Court is far from being as reliable as many conservatives had hoped.

Charles Lane, the Post's Supreme Court reporter, has a piece, headlined "Defining Limits of Eminent Domain." Lane also has a story in the Post today headlined "Justices to Hear Challenge to Oregon Assisted-Suicide Law." Some quotes:
Granting a request by the Bush administration, the Supreme Court said yesterday that it will decide whether the Justice Department may bar Oregon doctors from prescribing lethal doses of drugs to terminally ill patients who have chosen to die under that state's 11-year-old Death With Dignity Act.

In a brief order, the court said it will review a lower court's decision preventing enforcement of a November 2001 statement of Justice Department policy by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. The directive said that assisting suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" under federal drug-control law and that the Drug Enforcement Administration could strip the prescribing rights of any physician who authorized drugs to help someone die.

Ashcroft's directive overturned a 1998 decision by President Bill Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, to permit Oregon doctors to assist in suicides.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 23, 2005 08:52 AM
Posted to General Law Related