Great Falls Tribune endorses Beth Baker for the state's highest court

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Oct 30, 2010 at 10:38:33 AM MST

Baker...notes that "I've spent much of my career defending the judgments of district judges" as a lawyer for the state.

"The functions of the two courts are completely different," she said in an interview.

The trial courts are chaotic and lately somewhat overburdened, she said, while the Supreme Court is "where you go when a mistake is made or rights are violated."

Serving on the high court is a "more studious" occupation requiring diligence and independence, she said - an occupation for which she's well qualified.

We agree. Her listening ability and analytical nature are well suited for the Supreme Court.

Finally, there's another angle to idea of diversity on the high court that is at least worth mentioning: She'd be only the second woman on the present seven-member court.

Given Swandal's troubling efforts to identify his campaign with the Tea Party wing of the Republican party for a race that's supposed to be non-partisan - frankly, I don't think partisanship should have a place on the bench - the choice is clear.

Beth Baker should be your choice for the Montana Supreme Court in 2010.

Montana Family Foundation going on the offensive against death with dignity?

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 09:49:59 AM MST

Nothing in the Montana Supreme Court's decision prevents prosecutors from investigating and charging suicide-assisters with murder. Under the decision, assisting a suicide continues to be defined as homicide. The court merely said that in some narrow circumstances a physician might (or might not) be able to raise a "consent defense." But a consent defense is for defendants already charged with murder. In real life, suicides involve patients who suffer pressures, abuse, impaired decision-making and other vulnerabilities that don't even qualify as "consent." And nothing prevents lawsuits against doctors and institutions over those messy details.

If you are scratching your head over this argument, especially after reading the Montana court's decision (pdf), which, as far as I can tell, makes no mention of "consent defense," you are not alone. Again, this is verbatim from the court's decision:

The Montana constitutional rights of individual privacy and human dignity, taken together, encompass the right of a competent terminally patient to die with dignity. That is to say, the patient may use the assistance of his physician to obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medication that the patient may take his on his own if and when he decides to terminate his life. The patient's right to die with dignity includes protection of the patient's physician from liability under the state's homicide statutes.

Can doctors expect lawsuits over their aid in giving medication to terminally ill patients? Of that I have no doubt. I'm sure the Montana Family Foundation even now is preparing strategies on how to take to court doctors who assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives. All you need is a family member to claim that the patient wasn't "competent" at the time they requested and received life-ending medication. The aim here isn't to change the opinion of Montana voters or craft a law forbidding physician-assisted suicide but to intimidate doctors from working with patients and their constitutional right to death with dignity. After all, even without merit, lawsuits are expensive and possibly damaging to reputations.

In that light, this letter isn't so much an explanation of the law, but a warning shot.

There is just one moon and one golden sun

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 11:10:56 AM MST

Dustin Frost is managing Nels Swandal's campaign for the Montana Supreme Court?

Swandal was the original judge assigned to preside over the case involving allegations that State Senator Greg Barkus - yes, a Republican from Kalispell - after all of the judges in Flathead County recused themselves because they had exchange political favors with Greg.

You might recall that last fall Barkus launched his boat on the rocky edifices just south of Bigfork after a night drinking across the Flathead Lake in Lakeside.

Everyone on board suffered severe injuries, but Dustin Frost is lucky to be alive.

Swandal was taken off the case after his ties with, including campaign contributions to, Republicans in every walk of life were revealed.

Frost, fortunately recovered and went back to work with Rehberg several months ago.

Now. Barkus's attorney is using every trick up his sleeve to delay and dicker to save Greg from donning prison issue and spending time in Deer Lodge. Given the machinations between the GOP and those who preside over the criminal justice system, coupled with normal amount of judicial intrigue with political big shots, Barkus might just beat the rap.

Had Swandal remained on the case, resulting from alleged negligence that almost took Dustin Frost's life, he would be in the midst of the maneuvering behind the scenes.

Instead, Swandal is off the case and an announced candidate for the high court.

And, Frost, who is a bright and capable fellow, now leads Swandal's campaign.

Go figure. What are the odds?

Or, is this simply a coincidence?

What next? Swandal wins (God forbid). Rehberg runs for Governor in 2012 and wins (OMG!). Frost selected as chief of staff.

And, Barkus?

Appointed to chauffeur Denny around after hours.

Montana Supreme Court approves death with dignity

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 17:55:15 PM MST

The Montana Supreme Court said Thursday that nothing in state law prevents patients from seeking physician-assisted suicide, making Montana the third state that will allow the procedure.

Patients and doctors had been waiting for the state's high court to step in after a lower court decided a year ago that constitutional rights to privacy and dignity protect the right to die.

The Montana Supreme Court opinion will now give doctors in the state the freedom to prescribe the necessary drugs to mentally competent, terminally ill patients without fear of being prosecuted, advocates said.

According to the report, the state's highest court didn't give Montanans the constitutional right to death with dignity, but that there was "nothing in state law or the court's precedent indicated it was against public policy." Politically, the ruling sets up a political row over the practice in the upcoming legislature, where, no doubt, social conservatives will try to ram a bill through outlawing the practice.

Right now, though, physician-assisted suicide is legal in Montana.

Honestly, I have no idea how the issue will play with Montanans. For one, it's a state with a strong libertarian streak -- and who's business is it anyway how someone suffering from a terminal disease chooses to die? On the other hand, social reactionaries are pretty good at marshaling votes and purging the lesser fanatics from the ballot. They will probably have a bloc of support in the legislature.

Just a gut feeling, but I feel that such a bill faces an uphill battle...

Thoughts?

Wheat to Montana Supreme Court

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 12:45:11 PM MST

Gov. Brian Schweitzer is picking a Bozeman lawyer and former state senator to fill a vacancy on the Montana Supreme Court.

Schweitzer announced the selection of Mike Wheat on Wednesday. Current Supreme Court Justice John Warner is retiring at the end of the year.

Wheat is an excellent choice for the position. During the state attorney general's race, I got a chance to sit down with Mike for nearly an hour and pick his brain, and I found an incredibly principled lawyer deeply committed to the law and to the state of Montana.

Wheat was George Ochenski's pick for attorney general, and you can read his thoughts on Mike's candidacy and stance on the death penalty in a pre-primary election column.

Congratulations, Mike.

POLL: Who Do You Think Would Make The Best Supreme Court Justice?

by: Montana Cowgirl

Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 04:55:15 AM MST

Following the comment period, a seven-member panel will pick between three and five candidate. Then, Governor Schweitzer will select a replacement from that group.

Whomever is selected will have to immediately run in November of 2010 for this non-partisan seat. Vote.

Jerry O'Neil is Good for a Laugh

by: Matt Singer

Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:57:20 AM MST

Amazingly, O'Neil has been trying this stuff for twenty years through a range of approaches, apparently including a foiled run for Supreme Court, an as-yet-unpassed Constitutional Amendment barring discrimination for admission to the bar on the basis of educational attainment, and other attempts to move jurisdiction over the bar from the Court to the legislature.

The paralawyer lost again. If, when he filed his papers for Supreme Court, he had applied for law school instead, this might not be a problem. Of course, he may not have made it through.