Supreme Court Wrap Up: Two drug related decisions were handed down today; I discuss them here. Locke v. Davey concerns Washington's state constitutional ban stating that: "No public money shall be applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction." Joshua Davey wanted to use a state scholarship to study in a religious affiliated school to advance his desire to become a minister. The state refused, he sued, and won in the lower courts. The oral argument was held today. See here for my take .... more to come when the decision is handed down. [Update: I got a few interesting replies to my "take" and answered them as well; also, I clarified one ill advised turn of phrase.]

[Information about this and other cases currently at issue in the Supreme Court can also be found here.]

---

The Medicare Bill led to a debate over the soul of the Democratic Party of which I took a part in, see here and here. It also involved a lot of pressure on doubtful conservative legislators, including apparently a thinly disguised threat on the political and business interests of one of their sons. Though the efforts of Republicans to obtain party discipline has shown to be particularly harsh these days, I wonder just how rare such a thing truly is. How many members of Congress were in effect bribed for their support in the past?

One interesting issue is the effect the Speech and Debate Clause has on an attempt to prosecute (somewhat unlikely, given the Bush Administration's role in all of this). Does it protect the congressman involved, who appears to want to keep quiet about the whole thing? Clearly, Congress can investigate, given the clause is largely a separation of powers measure and does not overrule other congressional rules (for instance, a senator cannot vilify a fellow senator with impunity just because it is done during a speech or debate). Also, it only applies to members of Congress and to some degree their staffs. Finally, even the similarly absolute First Amendment is not read absolutely.

The clause appears to have some relevance, especially if it is read broadly (see the discussion and relevant opinions/dissents found in the first link above). All the same, this does not mean Congress cannot investigate, especially (as is possible) forces outside of Congress had some role. Likewise, the target (a family member) makes this somewhat worse than a run of the mill quid pro quo situation. Anyway, it is clearly fair game for critics of the party, and those who want to put some limits on the "anything goes" nature that too often is the name of the game in politics today.