Synopsis
PART 1. Law and the Individual ISSUE 1. Do "Standardless" Manual Recounts Violate the EqualProtection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution? YES: U.S. Supreme Court, from Per Curium Opinion, George W. Bush et al. v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al., U.S.Supreme Court NO: John Paul Stevens, from Dissenting Opinion, George W.Bush et al. v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al., U.S. Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curium decision,rules that Florida''s manual recounting of ballots in the 2000presidential election failed to satisfy the basic constitutionalrequirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness. SupremeCourt justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the Court''s decision,asserts that the manner by which presidents are elected is theresponsibility of each individual state and that Florida''s ballotrecount was not limited by federal laws. ISSUE 2. Is Abortion Protected by the Constitution? YES: Sandra Day O''Connor, from Majority Opinion, PlannedParenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey et al., U.S. Supreme Court NO: William H. Rehnquist, from Dissenting Opinion, PlannedParenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey et al., U.S. Supreme Court Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O''Connor upholds awoman''s constitutional right to abortion under most circumstances andreaffirms the central holding of Roe v. Wade. Supreme Courtchief justice William H. Rehnquist argues that Pennsylvaniaregulations on abortion should be upheld and that it is appropriate tooverrule Roe v. Wade. ISSUE 3. Are Restrictions on Physician-Assisted SuicideConstitutional? YES: William H. Rehnquist, from Majority Opinion, Washingtonet al. v. Glucksberg et al., U.S. Supreme Court NO: Stephen Reinhardt, from Majority Opinion, Compassion inDying v. State of Washington, U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit Supreme Court chief justice William H. Rehnquist rulesthat although patients have the right to refuse life-sustainingtreatment, physician-assisted suicide is not constitutionallyprotected. Judge Stephen Reinhardt argues that forbiddingphysician-assisted suicide in the cases of competent, terminally illpatients violates the due process clause of theConstitution. ISSUE 4. Do People Have a Legal Right to Clone Themselves? YES: Cass Sunstein, from "The Constitution and the Clone", inMartha C. Nussbaum and Cass R. Sunstein, eds., Clones and Clones:Facts and Fantasies About Human Cloning NO: Cass Sunstein, from "The Constitution and the Clone", inMartha C. Nussbaum and Cass R. Sunstein, eds., Clones and Clones:Facts and Fantasies About Human Cloning Professor of law and political science Cass Sunstein,writing as fictional Supreme Court justice Monroe, argues that theright to cloning is analogous to established rights of reproductiveprivacy and autonomy and is therefore constitutionally protected.Sunstein, writing as fictional Supreme Court justice Winston, arguesthat the constitutional protection of "reproductive choice" does notextend to the decision to replicate oneself. ISSUE 5. Does the Sharing of Music Files Through NapsterViolate Copyright Laws? YES: Robert R. Beezer, from Majority Opinion, A&MRecords, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit NO: Jessica Litman et al., from Brief Amicus Curiae ofCopyright Law Professors in Support of Reversal, Napster, Inc. v.A&M Records, Inc. and Napster, Inc. v. Jerry Leiber etal., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Circuit Court judge Robert R. Beezer upholds theruling that Napster, Inc., by facilitating the copying anddistribution of the plaintiffs'' music recordings, is liable forcontributory copyright infringement. Jessica Litman et al., allprofessors of American law, argue that the district court in the Napster case applied an unduly narrow interpretation of thefair use doctrine and extended copyright law to shut down a useful newtechnology. ISSUE 6. Should the Insanity Defense Be Abolished? YES: Jonathan Rowe, from "Why Liberals Should Hate the InsanityDefense", The Washington Monthly NO: Richard Bonnie, from Statement Before the Committee on theJudiciary, U.S. Senate Editor Jonathan Rowe examines the insanity defense as itis now administered and finds that it is most likely to be used bywhite middle- or upper-class defendants and that its application isunfair and leads to unjust results. Professor of law Richard Bonnieargues that the abolition of the insanity defense would be immoral andwould leave no alternative for those who are not responsible for theiractions. ISSUE 7. Are Pretextual Stops by the Police Constitutional? YES: Antonin Scalia, from Majority Opinion, Whren et al. v.United States, U.S. Supreme Court NO: David A. Harris, from "`Driving While Black'' and All OtherTraffic Offenses: The Supreme Court and Pretextual Traffic Stops", Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia holds that pretextualtraffic stops do not violate an individual''s Fourth Amendment rights.He argues that the constitutionality of such stops does not depend onthe actual motivations of the police officer who makes the stop but onan objective determination of the reasonableness of the stop. David A.Harris, a professor of criminal law and criminal procedure, contendsthat Scalia''s opinion ignores the potential for abuse by the police ofgeneral and all-encompassing traffic codes. PART 2. Law and the State ISSUE 8. Do Religious Groups Have a Right to Use PublicSchool Facilities After Hours? YES: Clarence Thomas, from Majority Opinion, Good NewsClub et al. v. Milford Central School, U.S. Supreme Court NO: David Souter, from Dissenting Opinion, Good News Clubet al. v. Milford Central School, U.S. Supreme Court Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas affirms the right ofreligious groups to use school facilities after the school day ends,maintaining that restricting such use is a violation of free speechrights. Supreme Court justice David Souter, dissenting from theCourt''s opinion, contends that the use of school facilities byreligious groups blurs the line between public classroom instructionand private religious indoctrination and therefore violates theestablishment clause of the Constitution. ISSUE 9. Does the Use of High-Technology Thermal ImagingDevices Violate the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Guaranty? YES: Antonin Scalia, from Majority Opinion, Danny LeeKyllo v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court NO: John Paul Stevens, from Dissenting Opinion, Danny LeeKyllo v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia maintains thatthermal imaging devices reveal information "that would previously havebeen unknowable without physical intrusion" and that using suchdevices for surveillance without a warrant constitutes a violation ofthe Fourth Amendment. Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens assertsthat the Court''s application of search and seizure rules to newtechnology is too broad and that collecting thermal imaging data fromoutside the home is not a violation of privacy rights. ISSUE 10. Is Virtual Child Pornography Legal? YES: Donald W. Molloy, from Majority Opinion, Free SpeechCoalition v. Janet Reno, U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit NO: Warren J. Ferguson, from Dissenting Opin