MICHAEL C. DORF How the Supreme Court's Lethal Injection Ruling Elevates Appearances Over Reality FindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor Michael Dorf takes strong issue with the Supreme Court's recent ruling holding the current three-drug lethal injection protocol constitutional. Dorf focuses in particular on one argument that was expressly accepted by Chief Justice Roberts: that the administration of a three-drug cocktail that risks inflicting intense pain might still be justified by the need to stop the prisoner from experiencing convulsions that might disturb spectators. Dorf takes Roberts to task for accepting the risk of severe pain in order to preserve mere appearances. He also draws a parallel to the aesthetic considerations that drove the prior "partial birth" abortion ruling, which allowed fetuses to be dismembered in the womb, but not outside it.
Monday, Apr. 21, 2008
JOHN W. DEAN Why Congress Must Act to Protect Air Passengers: A Lawsuit Brought by Passengers Trapped on the Tarmac Without Basic Necessities Part Two in a Two-Part Series In Part Two of a two-part series of columns, FindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean argues that Congress should take quick action in the wake of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejecting New York's bid to protect airline passengers' rights. As Dean notes, the Second Circuit held that New York lacks the power to guarantee basic necessities such as food, water, and functioning toilets for airline passengers stranded for many hours on the tarmac at JFK or LaGuardia airports. Dean explains the implications of the Second Circuit's holding, describes progress in Congress so far, and contends that a federal statute in this area is long overdue.
Friday, Apr. 18, 2008


MARCI HAMILTON The Supreme Court Considers Whether Imposing the Death Penalty for Child Rape Is Constitutional: The Arguments For and Against the Penalty FindLaw columnist and visiting Princeton law and public affairs professor Marci Hamilton discusses a case in which the Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday, April 16. The Court must decide whether a defendant convicted of raping an eight-year-old can constitutionally receive the death penalty. Hamilton argues that the offense of child rape may be seen as as grave as murder, in that it destroys a child's life and future. However, she also warns that allowing the death penalty for child rape will not be a panacea for America's problem with child sexual abuse. For that problem to be solved, she contends, repeat perpetrators must be brought to justice, and for that to happen, statutes of limitations must be lengthened or abolished.
Thursday, Apr. 17, 2008


SHERRY F. COLB The Implications of Death Penalty Law for Human Euthanasia FindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb argues that the constitutional right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment may have interesting implications for a possible constitutional right for suffering, terminally-ill patients to avail themselves of euthanasia with the help of a physician. Colb points out, in support of her argument, that the Supreme Court has already recognized a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, which includes the right to refuse food and water. The anomalous result, she points out, is that Court precedents have caused a terminally-ill patient to have the painful option of starving to death, but not less painful options with which a doctor could assist.
Wednesday, Apr. 16, 2008

EDWARD LAZARUS Five Decades of Fighting Over the Constitutionality of the Death Penalty: What Can We Learn from This Lengthy War? FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Edward Lazarus discusses the Supreme Court's recent death penalty decision -- holding that Kentucky's three-drug lethal injection protocol does not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment -- in the context of the Court's history. Tracking the evolution of the Court's death penalty jurisprudence since the mid-1960s, Lazarus explains why this ultimate punishment has continued to divide the Court, often bitterly. In addition, he analyzes how that bitter split affected the Justice's opinions in the lethal injection decision, Baze v. Rees.

SHERRY F. COLB The Implications of Death Penalty Law for Human Euthanasia FindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb argues that the constitutional right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment may have interesting implications for a possible constitutional right for suffering, terminally-ill patients to avail themselves of euthanasia with the help of a physician. Colb points out, in support of her argument, that the Supreme Court has already recognized a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, which includes the right to refuse food and water. The anomalous result, she points out, is that Court precedents have caused a terminally-ill patient to have the painful option of starving to death, but not less painful options with which a doctor could assist.
Wednesday, Apr. 16, 2008