{"id":52936,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/scripts\/david.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"david","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/scripts\/david.html","title":{"rendered":"FindLaw’s Writ – Legal Commentary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/td>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
MICHAEL C. DORF<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A Supreme Court Order Affords Some Insight Into The Roberts Court’s View of Roe v. Wade: Must Prison Officials Transport an Inmate to an Abortion Clinic? <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nWill the Roberts Court eventually overrule Roe v. Wade? FindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor extracts some evidence of what some of the Justices’ thinking may be — by closely examining the context of a brief, recent Supreme Court. The order left intact a lower court’s decision to compel a prison to transport a female inmate to a clinic for an abortion — despite Justice Thomas’s having opted to temporarily stay the order to allow full Court consideration. Dorf examines, among other issues, why two open Roe opponents, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, opted not to dissent from this order; and explains why the lower court’s order was predicated on Roe v. Wade. \n<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\n\n\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\u00a0Columns<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/td>\n\n\n\nArchive<\/a>\u00a0<\/td>\n\n\n\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\n\n\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
MICHAEL C. DORF<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A Supreme Court Order Affords Some Insight Into The Roberts Court’s View of Roe v. Wade: Must Prison Officials Transport an Inmate to an Abortion Clinic? <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nWill the Roberts Court eventually overrule Roe v. Wade? FindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor extracts some evidence of what some of the Justices’ thinking may be — by closely examining the context of a brief, recent Supreme Court. The order left intact a lower court’s decision to compel a prison to transport a female inmate to a clinic for an abortion — despite Justice Thomas’s having opted to temporarily stay the order to allow full Court consideration. Dorf examines, among other issues, why two open Roe opponents, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, opted not to dissent from this order; and explains why the lower court’s order was predicated on Roe v. Wade. <\/span>
\nWednesday, Oct. 26, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
JULIE HILDEN<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Advancing The Right To Voice Dissent Within the Government:
The Supreme Court’s Opportunity To Reinvigorate the First Amendment for Public Employees<\/span><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses a recently-argued Supreme Court case involving a fight between an L.A. Deputy District Attorney and his bosses. The Deputy D.A. thought a defense attorney deserved to know more about his investigation of the basis for a problematic search warrant; his bosses disagreed, and, he says, penalized him for voicing his views. As Hilden explains, two key Supreme Court precedents still leave some ambiguity when it comes to First Amendment protections for job-related public employee speech — and this case could give the Court a chance to clear up that ambiguity. <\/span>
\nTuesday, Oct. 25, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
JONNA M. SPILBOR<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Murder of Pamela Vitale, Famed Defense Attorney Daniel Horowitz’s Wife:
Though a Suspect is Now in Custody, He May Get Off on A Reasonable Doubt Defense<\/span><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw guest columnist, criminal defense attorney, and frequent TV legal commentator Jonna Spilbor discusses the high-profile recent investigation of the murder of Pamela Vitale, wife of criminal defense attorney Daniel Horowitz. The police have arrested a suspect, sixteen year old Scott Dyleski. But as Spilbor explains, some details of the crime scene evidence, combined with statements by Horowitz and the presence of another possible suspect, might combine — unless DNA evidence is forthcoming — to raise reasonable doubt about Dyleski’s guilt. <\/span>
\nMonday, Oct. 24, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
JOHN W. DEAN<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Waiting For The Valerie Plame Wilson Grand Jury: The Big Question Is Whether Dick Cheney Was a Target <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean discusses the various possible outcomes of the Valerie Plame leak grand jury investigation, headed by Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Dean addresses a number of key issues, including: Is the investigation likely to result in indictments? If so, of whom? What are the constitutional limits on indictments on those high up in the executive branch? What aspects of the evidence are likely to seem especially significant to Fitzgerald, as he decides whether a leak merits an indictment? If the leaks happened, will their motivation matter? <\/span>
\nFriday, Oct. 21, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
JOANNA GROSSMAN<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Difference Between Recognizing a Same-Sex Marriage and Authorizing One: Why a New York Appellate Court Got it Wrong <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent decision by a New York intermediate appellate court that rejected a same-sex-Vermont-civil-union-partner’s New York wrongful deaths suit to recover damages for his partner’s allegedly tortious death. Grossman argues that the court wrongly conflated two questions: whether New York should recognize Vermont civil unions as, in effect, marriages for this particular purpose; and whether New York itself should authorize same-sex marriage or civil union status. The court, she argues, should have properly answered the first question, not the second, and therefore let the suit go forward. <\/span>
\nThursday, Oct. 20, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
NOAH LEAVITT<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Saddam’s Upcoming Trial: How Can Justice Be Served? <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist, human rights attorney, and Whitman professor Noah Leavitt puts the Saddam trial in a larger legal, political, and historical context. Leavitt explains the likely effect of yesterday’s decision by the tribunal to grant Saddam’s attorneys’ request for a three-week continuance; discusses how the trial fits into the Iraqi and global political scenes, as well as the history of war crimes tribunals; and notes the criticisms that human rights groups have lodged against aspects of the trial procedures. <\/span>
\nThursday, Oct. 20, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
ANITA RAMASASTRY<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tracking Every Move You Make, Part Two:
Government Monitoring of Drivers’ Cell Phones Raises Some Privacy Concerns that Can Be Easily Mitigated<\/span><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and U. Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses a type of monitoring planned to be used by Missouri, as well as some other states. It involves tracking drivers’ movements using their cellphones’ distance from various cell phone towers, and its purpose, the Missouri Department of Transportation says, is to ameliorate traffic congestion. MDOT says the information will be kept anonymous, but should privacy advocates still be worried? And is San Francisco’s system based on toll booth e-passes a better one from a privacy standpoint? Ramasastry comments. <\/span>
\nWednesday, Oct. 19, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
SHERRY F. COLB<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Does the U.S. Constitution Allow Government To Limit the Use of Assisted Reproduction Technologies to Married Couples? <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses questions raised by a now-withdrawn, intensely controversial Indiana measure that would, if enacted into law, have restricted the use of “assisted reproduction” — that is, the use of modern reproductive technologies such as IVF — to married couples alone. Colb examines past Supreme Court precedent on the right to choose whether or not to reproduce, in assessing whether this, or similar measures, could be held to be constitutional. <\/span>
\nWednesday, Oct. 19, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
MARCI HAMILTON<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Harriet Miers Nomination: What Does Religion Have to Do With It? <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses a question that many have been asking with respect to the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination: Will she overrule Roe v. Wade, in light of her strong religious convictions? Hamilton points out that even if — as conservatives have suggested — Miers oppose a right to abortion, that stance is very different from the stance that Roe should be overruled. The latter stance, Hamilton explains, involves the legal doctrine of stare decisis — which governs when precedent should stand even in the event that later Justices feel it was mistaken.<\/span>
\nTuesday, Oct. 18, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
ANTHONY J. SEBOK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
If Harriet Miers is Confirmed to the Supreme Court, How Is She Likely To Rule on the Tort Law Questions that Affect Both Big Business and Ordinary Citizens? <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and Brooklyn law professor Anthony Sebok points out that, in focusing on Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’s constitutional views, Senators may not have devoted sufficient attention to other subject areas on which she would vote, as a Justice. In particular, Sebok focuses on tort law — asking, for instance, Does Miers’s record as a litigator mean she would be pro-business as a Justice? And does Miers’s strong alliance with several tort reform proponents mean that she would, as a Justice, look kindly upon tort reform statutes? Sebok argues that to answer questions like these, Senators ought to be able to see advice on related issues that Miers has given to the Bush Administration. <\/span>
\nMonday, Oct. 17, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n