• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Young Hires New Lawyer in Suit Against Covington | Main | Bill Would Boost Funding for Legal Aid to Poor »

March 27, 2009


Dr. Aidun Dravidian

This case,based on its merits, comes down to the invocation of the political question doctrine as it involves a separation of powers doctrine, ergo, it has a constitutional mooring. At least, that's what the Court said. But the constitution per se is the supreme law of the land, in other words, it is written law just like any other piece of legislation.

So why split hairs about constitutional and statutory because both are memorialized in writing as laws. Can the least dangerous branch of our government say what it means and mean what it says so that res judicata can have relevance?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad