The Volokh Conspiracy
[Jonathan Adler, August 7, 2007 at 6:17pm] Trackbacks
More on Abigail Alliance:

Lyle Denniston discusses the case at SCOTUSBlog here, and the AP covers the decision here.

There's also more commentary at Hit & Run, OpenMarket, and the Drug Law Blog.

UPDATE: Briefs, updates and other materials related to the case are available on the Washington Legal Foundation website here.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Abigail Alliance and therapeutic cloning
  2. Abigail Alliance -- The Practitioners Respond:
  3. Roger Pilon on Abigail Alliance:
  4. A Practitioner's Perspective on Abigail Alliance:
  5. More on Abigail Alliance:
  6. Judge Rogers' Abigail Alliance Dissent:
  7. Jessie Hill on Abigail Alliance:
  8. Some Thoughts on Abigail Alliance:
  9. No Constitutional Right to Drugs:
frankcross (mail):
Haven't yet read the case but based on the Scotusblog discussion, I think one aspect of the majority opinion is quite bogus, though not unique, in the redefinition of the right. Plaintiffs should get to define the rights they claim. The court may then say either (a) the right doesn't exist or (b) the challenged action does not implicate the right or (c) the circumstances warrant the intrusion on the right. Plaintiffs control their complaint and redefining the right is evading the question.
8.7.2007 7:28pm
wm13:
Well, frankcross, in my appellate advocacy course, I learned that if you can get the court to accept your version of the "Question Presented," you have won. Your system would mean that appellant wins every case.
8.7.2007 11:07pm
frankcross (mail):
No, it doesn't. I have already given three ways it wouldn't.
8.8.2007 10:28pm

PicoSearch
Help