High Court Hears First Amendement Case, Decision Might Undermine Roe

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 06:36:57 AM MST

The High Court heard a case yesterday which is being argued on First Amendment grounds. The case arises from the practice of so-called "Data Mining" companies collecting the prescription history of doctors and then aggregating that information and selling it to pharmaceutical companies, who then use it to target market of drugs to specific doctors.  

Now, the patients who receive these prescriptions are not known, just that that prescription was written and filled. The State of Vermont passed a law (as well as New Hampshire and a couple of other states) that prohibited this practice. They were taken to court by the data mining companies with the support of the pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Vermont created a law that requires that doctors consent to having this kind of information sold by pharmacies and data mining companies. The State admitted that part of the move to do so was an attempt to control costs. When doctors receive a barrage of marketing about name brand drugs, they are more likely to prescribe them, even if there is a generic that is just as effective. The desire to see more low cost prescriptions is the states interest in this and where they are likely to be in trouble with the High Court

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg asked:

And if that's the purpose, why doesn't that run up against what this court has said - that you can't lower the decibel level of one speaker so that another speaker, in this case the generics, can be heard better?"

Supreme Court deals setback for Environmental Activists and Refugees

by: wade norris

Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 12:59:48 PM MST

On September 21, 2009,
the Second Circuit made an important decision on a case known as
Connecticut vs American Electric Power.
Without going into too much detail, this was a case several groups like the Audubon society were trying to stop coal plant emissions because it was harming the value of their land trusts. The lower court ruled as other courts have, that Climate Change was part of the political realm, not the courts.
However, the appellate court overturned this decision on the grounds that the Energy company were causing a public nuisance, and nuisance cases have been heard by courts for decades.

"Nowhere in their complaints do plaintiffs ask the court to fashion a comprehensive and far-reaching solution to global climate change, a task that arguably falls within the purview of the political branches. Instead, they seek to limit emissions from six domestic coal-fired electricity plants on the ground that such emissions constitute a public nuisance that they allege has caused, is causing and will continue to cause them injury."

Unfortunately, as of April 20th, 2011, it seems that even the 'liberal' judges on the Supreme court are going to side with the Utilities :

   Justice Elena Kagan also questioned the scope of the case, refuting Underwood's argument that public nuisance pollution suit was like any other pollution suit. "All those other pollution suits that you've been talking about are much more localized affairs. One factory emitting discharge into one stream-they don't involve these kinds of national/international policy issues ... I mean, there's a huge gap, a chasm between the precedents you have and this case, isn't there?"

   Justice Ruth Ginsburg, meanwhile, questioned the court's jurisdiction in setting standards for emissions. "Asking a court to set standards for emissions sounds like the kind of thing that EPA does," she said. "The relief you're seeking seems to me to set up a district judge, who does not have the resources, the expertise, as a kind of super-EPA."

A Small Win On Sovereign Immunity At The SCOTUS

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Wed Apr 20, 2011 at 06:24:19 AM MST

As part of the Friday Constitutional series we recently talked about Sovereign Immunity. Basically it is the idea that a citizen or group can't sue the government for the normal conduct of its work, even when they disagree with that conduct. It is basically designed to keep the gears of government from being gummed up with law suits from the opposition.

Sovereign immunity can be waved by the government in question (local, State or Federal) and is in a great number of cases. This idea, while part of the Constitution had decayed quite a bit by the late 1990's when the Rehnquist Court brought it out of the ICU and back into mainstream legal thought with the Alden v. Maine decision.

The basic issue here was whether Federal law allowed private citizens to sue state government over issues of Federal law, even against an assertion of Sovereign Immunity by the State. The premise that the Rehnquist Court used to say that a SI claim could be made and upheld by a State was based on some really shaky legal reasoning. It basically held that because the original states had sovereign immunity prior to the founding of the United States that it should have continued even when they formed a new country.  

Justice Scalia Says 17th Amendment Was Mistake For States Rights

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 06:50:31 AM MST

This opened the door to other conservative interests and saddled us with Justices that talk about nonsense like "original intent". I've written about how this is really a veiled attempt at case law nullification, as going to the original intent allows Justices who are so inclined to ignore stare decisis (settled law) and take a weed whacker to our understanding of the Constitution based solely on their impression of what the original intent of the Framers was.  

Yes, Jonah Goldberg, The Supreme Court Is Supposed To Decide What Is Constitutional

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 06:05:00 AM MST

They would use this thinking to end the Federal minimum wage, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. All the big Tea Party faves have this idea, with Joe Miller, Sharon Angle and Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell really leading the charge.

This idea is nuts on the surface but it is packed full of nutty goodness as you get deeper as well. The whole push for "constitutional fealty" by the Right is a ruse and always has been. The reason that they want to return to so called original intent it so wipe out two centuries of case law that does not suit their radical agenda.  

First Amendment Takes A Big Hit - Material Support For Terrorism Law Upheld

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Tue Jun 22, 2010 at 06:18:21 AM MST

The Center For Constitutional Rights (CCR) were part of the legal team that brought the suit. They argued that the definitions of  "material support" were overly broad and vague. Some of the words at issue were "expert advice", "training", "service" and personnel". These words can cover a lot of situations that have nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with bringing terrorist groups into the political process and ending their terrorist activities.  

No Accountability For Rendition In US, But Maybe In Canada

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Tue Jun 15, 2010 at 05:38:35 AM MST

On Monday the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of one such innocent victim of torture, Mr. Maher Arar, a Syrian born Canadian citizen. In 2002 he was returning to Canada from a trip abroad. At a stop over at JFK Airport he was detained by the US Government and held in solitary confinement for two weeks without access to an attorney. Mr. Arar was then deported, not to his nation of citizenship, Canada but, to Syria and put in the hands of the Syrian intelligence services, who are well known for their torture activities.  

Kagan: In Bush v. Gore, Court Was Affected By Politics And Policy

by: johnhkennedy

Wed May 19, 2010 at 09:03:13 AM MST

What do you all think?

See the article at Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Life Without Parole For Minors Held Unconstitutional By SCOTUS

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Mon May 17, 2010 at 13:00:00 PM MST

This kind of thinking leads to ideas like three strike laws, which allow the sentence of imprisonment for life to be levied on anyone who commits three felonies. This is regardless of the nature of the third felony. It is because of these kinds of laws that we see convicted felons sentenced to life behind bars for the crime of stealing a bicycle.

Today the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling which does not address threes strikes laws, but does address the imposition of . In Graham v. Florida the SCOTUS was asked if it was unconstitutional for states to be able to sentence juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole, if their crimes did not involve a homicide.  

Iraqi Torture Victims Appeal Civil Suit To Supreme Court

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 11:21:10 AM MST

It has sadly continued in the Obama administration. Without letting our current Executive Branch off the hook at all, it is easy to understand how that happens. How many of us have ever been willing to give up privileges we have, even if we are fairly sure it is not a good idea for anyone to have them? Since no one, not even the former V.P. Dick Cheney is the villain in the movie of their life, everyone thinks they will use these powers only for good.

This is why we need groups like the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights to fight against the expansion of governmental power and accountability for any illegal acts the government might commit.  

AG's HCR Lawsuits Try For Case Law Nullification

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 06:56:36 AM MST

The actions of the current conservatives and the Republican Party where they make their home seems to be far more about turning back the clock then slowing the pace of change. The best example of this is their legal thinking. Any time there is a new law that they do not like, they run all the way back to the Constitution and say that it is not in that venerable 223 year old document.  

On The Protection Of Hateful Speech -Westboro Baptist Church

by: Bill Egnor AKA Something The Dog Said

Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 06:43:30 AM MST