Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AntiGuv
I am surprised that the Scalia and Thomas dissented.

Forced medication of defendants is a scary notion in the first place, and it is a power that just begs to be abused. The situation evokes memories of the Soviet Union during the cold war.

Since anyone can be institutionalized and forcibly medicated on the signature of two doctors or one doctor and one next-of-kin(at least in SC), it is difficult to imagine what greater power prosecution and LE would rightly want to have in the forcible administration of mind-altering drugs to defendants in the time before a trial.

12 posted on 06/16/2003 1:25:06 PM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Yeti
"I am surprised that the Scalia and Thomas dissented."

Those two as*oles have big fan clubs here at FR, but those same rooters never seem to notice that in any case where the issue is the rights of an individual vs. the powers of the government they side with the government.
14 posted on 06/16/2003 3:43:03 PM PDT by John Beresford Tipton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Yeti; John Beresford Tipton
Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor dissented because they believed that the Court didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.
The District Court never entered a final judgment in this case, which should have led the Court of Appeals to wonder whether it had any business entertaining petitioner's appeal. Instead, without so much as acknowledging that Congress has limited court-of-appeals jurisdiction to "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States," 28 U. S. C. §1291 (emphasis added), and appeals from certain specified interlocutory orders, see §1292, the Court of Appeals proceeded to the merits of Sell's interlocutory appeal. . . . This Court's cases do not authorize appeal from the District Court's April 4, 2001, order, which was neither a "final decision" under §1291 nor part of the class of specified interlocutory orders in §1292. We therefore lack jurisdiction, and I would vacate the Court of Appeals' decision and remand with instructions to dismiss.

MORE


16 posted on 06/16/2003 7:49:51 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson