ndmckinney|net

According to the Washington Post, Justice Ginsburg, as the only woman on the bench, feels isolated since the departure of Justice O’Conner.

Regarding Judicial Review:

The United States Constitution is largely silent on the workings of the federal courts. The concept of judicial review is not outlined anywhere in Article III. It was created in Marbury v. Madison as a necessary function of the court.

So where do strict constructionists derive their authority for judicial review?

In a unanimous decision (Stevens concurring in judgement), the Supreme Court today issued an opinion allowing Anna Nicole Smith to pursue her claim for her one-half of the estate of her late “husband.” From a quick glance, the Court based its opinion largely on a “probate” exception, where a federal court has jurisdiction to entertain suits of legatees and other claimants to an estate so long as it does not interfere with the state’s probate procedures.

A copy of the opinion can be found here.

At least, that’s how he thinks it should be.

Senator Arlen Specter wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post Tuesday arguing that the Court needs to suck it up and accept his bill to open up the Court to television cameras. With all due respect to Senator Specter, but his camera bill is a lot of static.

The inner working of the Court have been shrouded in mystery since the Court was created. To this day, many of the mechanisms are simply unknown. Requiring the Court to open itself to television cameras will provide no additional insight. No longer is the well of the Court the great forum for legal debate; issues are largely disposed of in written briefs (and, more cynically, in the jurisprudence of the Justices). The oral arguments do have some worth, but adding a television camera will not add any depth to the debate. For those who want to listen to the debates, they are available as audio recordings. This should satisfy the curiosity of the C-SPAN junkie and Court-watcher alike. No other federal court, after all, is being subjected to the requirement of being available to the viewing public, so why the Court?

Apparently no one, you loser. Scalia, J., is telling you, the one who doubts his impartiality, to “get a life.”

Sigh…

As the BBC and the Washington Post are reporting, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to Research in Motion (“RIM”). From today’s order list (546 U.S.)

05-763 RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD. V. NTP, INC.
The motion of Intel Corporation for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of Canadian Chamber of Commerce, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Government of Canada for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

It seems that RIM has run out of options. The Court leaves standing the Circuit Court opinion in favor of NTP, the company who currently owns the disputed patents. The last remedy left for RIM is that the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) invalidates NTPs patents; otherwise, RIM will face an injunction ordering them to cease operations.

I’ve previously mentioned this case here, here, and here. Looking back, I’m not exactly sure why I have a grudge against RIM. Maybe it’s because I’m so annoyed with all the Blackberry users on the Metro. I can’t really explain it otherwise.

I’m not really sure how to interpret this. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Gonzales v. Oregon, a case deciding the fate of Orgeon’s doctor-assisted suicide law. For a more thorough summary of the decision, read the Washington post, the BBC, or the NY Times.

I’m not one for strong states’ rights. I’d prefer the states to be administrative bodies to the federal government. That being said, I do like the outcome of this case. While I may not like for Oregon to have the right to create law unique to Oregon, I do respect it as a part of our legal system. Likewise, the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) argument that the Attorney General’s office was making was weak at best. As the court ruled, the CSA was not intended to limit a state’s ability to regulate pharmaceutical usage within its borders, only to prevent trafficking in illegal drugs. This ruling was a narrow legal decision regarding a narrow legal question.

The rhetoric coming from the White House now only further confuses the matter in the public’s eye. Rhetoric about a so-called “culture of life” grossly misleads the view on this matter. The state of Oregon has overwhelmingly accepted this law, brought by voter referendum and renewed on multiple occasions since its inception. The People condone the idea of euthanasia; moreover, it is their right to do so.