More on Katz:

Steve Jacubowski at the Bankruptcy Litigation Blog has more on the Katz case noted by Stuart this morning.

I was teaching all day, so haven't had a chance to read it yet myself, but I thought Steve's post was an interesting take on the case.

volokh watcher (mail):
It's almost comical that Justice Thomas's dissent in Katz begins by criticizing the majority for ignoring precedent. Even Justice Scalia acknowledges that J. Thomas has no use for precedent.

What's also amusing is that when it comes to state legislation allowing physician-assisted suicide, J. Thomas -- and the other dissenters -- have no problem disregarding the sanctity of state sovereignty.

And I also find unfortunate -- and this is an across-the-board observation -- that among the dissenters, and the majority for that matter, the federal government trumps individual rights almost as a matter of course. And state governments trump individual rights almost as a matter of course.

No one among this group of nine has much regard for individual rights at all -- so ironic, given that federal and state power is not unlimited and their source comes from the people.

And, at one time, it was gospel that the Bill of Rights -- which presumably should include the 14th Amendment's P&I and DP clauses -- were to be read liberally.

"It has been repeatedly decided that these Amendments should receive a liberal construction, so as to prevent stealthy encroachment upon or 'gradual depreciation' of the rights secured by them, by imperceptible practice of courts or by well-intentioned, but mistakenly overzealous executive officers." Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454 n.4 (1971) (quoting Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 303-304 (1921)).
1.24.2006 10:04am