Supreme Court

In 1982, Allen E. Ertel came within a hairbreadth of upsetting Dick Thornburgh for governor. Too bad. He might have been an improvement. In 1984, Ertel came even closer to unseating LeRoy Zimmerman as attorney general of Pennsylvania. Too bad. He certainly would have been an improvement. Last year, Ertel won the Democratic nomination for a state Supreme Court vacancy, and was on his way to what would have been a memorable confrontation with Republican Anita Brody, when the court he had his sights on pulled the rug out from under all statewide judicial candidates by ruling the election in an even-numbered year unconstitutional.

NFL players asked the Supreme Court yesterday to let athletes file antitrust lawsuits against leagues that impose salaries after reaching a bargaining impasse with players' unions. Otherwise, players would be forced to choose between keeping union representation and suing over imposed salaries, said the players' lawyer, Kenneth Starr, who also is the Whitewater independent counsel. Gregg H. Levy, the NFL's attorney, replied that leagues are exempt from antitrust lawsuits even if both sides acknowledge they are unable to agree to a contract.

Track star Butch Reynolds, suspended for nearly 2 1/2 years after allegedly failing a drug test, lost his Supreme Court request yesterday to collect $27.4 million from the organization that barred him. The court declined to hear the case, rejecting Reynolds's argument that a U.S. court had the authority to order the governing body of international track and field to pay damages for saying he tested positive for steroids. The decision, announced without comment, was a victory for the International Amateur Athletic Federation.

Embattled Justice Rolf Larsen won yesterday's vote to keep his seat on the state Supreme Court, according to unofficial election returns. Larsen had gone into the election amidst controversy. But he was favored to win the second 10-year term and move a step closer to securing his future as the state's next chief justice. He had no opponent. Pennsylvanians were asked to vote yes or no on whether to keep him on the bench. With three-fourths of the state's precincts reporting, Larsen was being approved for retention by a ratio of almost 2-1. There had been some question as to whether the high voter turnout in Philadelphia, where members of the city bar association had found him unqualified, might tip the balance against Larsen, a Democrat from Pittsburgh.

Connecticut and San Francisco are fighting the nation's biggest banks in an attempt to limit fees at automated teller machines. The federal government is on the banks' side. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether Iowa has the right to regulate out-of-state banks' ATM placements. Connecticut and San Francisco are fighting to ban ATM customer fees. In each case, the U.S. Department of the Treasury is supporting the banks' right to locate and charge for ATMs as they see fit. Congress has supported the banks' position, on the theory that fees make it profitable to put ATMs where they wouldn't otherwise be. How will the court rule?

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania announced Tuesday that it would launch a Twitter feed to instantly communicate opinions, rulings, and other relevant information. Recipients can sign up at http://twitter.com/SupremeCtofPA "The manner and pace in which the Commonwealth's citizens expect to receive information from their government is changing rapidly," Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin said in a statement. "This is a logical extension of an ongoing commitment to enhance the delivery of court information and services in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Attorney General Edwin Meese's comment that Supreme Court rulings are not the supreme law of the land drew sharp criticism yesterday from the American Bar Association, a civil liberties group and legal scholars. Meese said a high court ruling on a constitutional question "binds the parties in a case and also the executive branch for whatever enforcement is necessary. But such a decision does not establish a 'supreme law of the land' that is binding on all persons and parts of government, henceforth and forevermore," Tuesday at Tulane University in New Orleans.

After 2 1/2 years in and out of local courts, the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard lawsuit will be heard in the highest court in the land. The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday announced it will decide whether the courts have the power to review base-closure decisions - a decision that could have repercussions for hundreds of areas with bases that are scheduled to close. The base-closure commission voted to close the yard in 1991, and area congressional members filed a lawsuit shortly after, charging the Navy and the commission had broken the law. The Naval Yard is scheduled to begin closing in 1996.

The Supreme Court yesterday refused to invalidate a federal law designed to protect children from online pornography, but several justices suggested that the law ultimately could be doomed under the First Amendment. The justices threw out a lower court ruling that struck down the law, but their decision was far from the final word on the Child Online Protection Act. The court sent the matter back to the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for more study and, in the meantime, refused to lift a ban that has prevented the law from taking effect.

IT WAS BIG news that the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled state-sanctioned executions of juvenile offenders unconstitutional. While many Americans were surprised that we still execute our children, I was surprised that there were four old fools on the court who felt it was still fine if we were lumped in with such bastions of civility as Congo, China, Yemen and Iran in the legal murdering of our youngest citizens. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia proclaimed a non-sequitur - fast becoming his infamous trademark - unsuccessfully attempting to link the execution of our children with "choice" by saying that if we believe young girls are old enough to decide whether or not they will have an abortion, then they are also mature enough to be held culpable for their misdeeds by paying the ultimate penalty.