Looking for one thing on the Internet, sometimes an interesting surprise is unearthed. Here is one thought in reflecting on one I had today.
For the Supra biotech section generally, I focus on various laws in the making through policy debates and legislation, enacted laws and science-- so much is happening and often developments occur at a speed where events occur and who knows that they did?
I ask myself how is it best to write this or that post using text which comprises relatively little space as compared to a law review/journal paper, who might the audience be who has the time to read it sooner-- or later-- and what might be of interest to readers? What can I offer in doing so to be of service and contribute one small effort to the huge endeavor we point to as lawyer professionalism. Well, you never know.
So today I hoped to find some interesting Supreme Court opinions to write about in regard to cases previously mentioned in my posts. Clicking over to the Scotus website, I found:
Monday, March 31st, 2008 12:01 am, Ben Winograd wrote that at 10 a.m., the Court is expected to release one or more opinions, as well as orders from the Justices' private conference last Friday. We will post copies of both as soon as they become available. (1)
As of now, it looks like there might only be one SCT decision released for the day and not the one I was looking for.
However, on same Scoutus webpage, I noticed their: "Blog Round-Up" WSJ Law Blog:
Scalia to News Media: Focus on the Text! an interesting post by Dan Slater: (2)
March 28, 2008 While we'd be honored if Justice Scalia read the Law Blog, we sure hope he didn't have us in mind yesterday. In D.C., at a conference of the Food and Drug Law Institute, Scalia reportedly took the news media to task for failing to focus on the text of the laws the High Court interprets. In some instances, said Scalia, the news media leave the impression that no ruling based on the text of a law 'is even possible'.
The referenced and linked AP news story (3) reported in part that:
At a conference of attorneys in Washington, Scalia said news organizations often fail to focus on the text of the laws the court interprets, citing accounts of last month's 8-1 decision that made it harder for consumers to sue makers of federally approved medical devices.
I remember trying to write a post on that case, and ultimately selected a few quotes from the decision that I liked in order to show different sides of the controversy. It was a challenge to communicate through bits and pieces, but I guess you might say that this is a product of poetic license, not legal reporting, offered to the Supra audience which is made up of other lawyers who share certain education and experience.
So, while I think that by sharing the gist of selected legal happenings, through what is written, and what is not written, blog posts can be meaningful to readers, I personally look to various editorials for various opinions. Well reasoned ones are more persuasive.
Some opinions of the news media never grow old. I often re-read one or the other of the Federalist papers, ( published 1787-1788, primarily in two New York state newspapers:
The New York Packet and The Independent Journal. They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states).
Here is one of many, many ideas and observations as discussed in their opinions:
On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I [Hamilton] cannot forbear adding a remark or two: ...What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. [3] And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.
(1)http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
(2)http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/03/28/scalia-to-news-media-focus-on-the-text/?mod=WSJBlog
(3)The AP news story it is based on is linked via http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_SCALIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
(4) http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_84.html Federalist No.1 & 84
(5) http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/abt_fedpapers.html
Background;
The Federalist, commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time.
The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution. (5)
“Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered” From McLEAN'S Edition, New York.
Author: Alexander Hamilton To the People of the State of New York
AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America….
I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:
THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention. (4)