Just wanted to note in case you didn't notice that the first decisions of the Roberts Court were handed down yesterday. Of highest interest was the court upholding Oregon's assisted suicide legislation. They found (basically) that the Justice Department (under Ashcroft) was overstepping its authority by removing licensing for doctors who prescribed medicines for the purpose of assisting suicide. Justice was acting on the Schedule II controlled substances laws. This result is interesting in two ways.
1) There are implications for medical marijuana laws, as the case is essentially the same (i.e. subscribing a controlled substance based upon a state law which conflicts with a federal law) except that medical marijuana could be somewhat more harshly judged under the language of "illicit" and "health and public safety". Also, if assisted suicide is a "legitimate medical purpose" as required by the statute then it seems like interpreting easing pain in end of life or stimulating appetite or relieving glaucoma are all less stringent definitions of "legitimate medical purpose".
Somewhat more of a stretch is the implication for federal drug laws, and whether the government has a right to enforce them on states which do not. Given the current makeup of the court, I doubt that such a decision will follow (especially once O'Connor has gone).
2) The decision is also interesting in that it marks the triumphant return of the unHoly Trinity, with Roberts taking his rightful position of Father (replacing Rehnquist) and Scalia and Thomas reprising their previous roles. Just in case there was anyone out there who thought he was a closet moderate just because he talks pretty.
Notes:
The decision can be found here
And here's the main Supreme Court site
Also, here's Dahlia Lithwicks take (from Slate) I haven't read it yet, but from skimming the beginning, she seems to point out that Kennedy is moderating somewhat, and may take on the O'Connor role once Alito joins, bringing us back to the happy land of 4-5 / 5-4 splits between the ideological wings. I had thought it a little odd that Kennedy wrote the opinion, but hadn't picked up the subtext there. (Which I suppose is why she gets paid to do this, though in my defense, she also gets paid to attend the hearings and read all the opinions, not to mention she went to law school.) Anyway, check it out, she's usually got a really interesting take on the cases.
