Editorial Roundup for Sunday — September 04, 2005

• Supreme Court; Iraq constitution; Drug risk

Supreme Court; Iraq constitution; Drug risk

Chicago Tribune, Sunday, Aug. 28

When Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court, the expectation in Washington was: bloodbath to follow. This was the first vacancy in 11 years, and President Bush’s first chance to reshape the court according to his preferences. It was assumed he would pick someone who would make liberals blanch. …

But Bush let the air out of that balloon by choosing a nominee less notable for his ideology than for his distinguished legal credentials and equable manner. John Roberts served under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, leaving little doubt of his conservative views. Still, even many liberals were hard-pressed to find fault with someone known as one of the nation’s premier Supreme Court advocates, who easily won Senate approval when he was nominated to a federal appeals court.

It’s too early to say Roberts deserves confirmation. The hearings are bound to bring to light information that bears on his suitability for the court. A serious, dignified and open-minded examination of the John Roberts who will emerge from the hearings would be a boon to public understanding, to the reputation of the Senate and to the standing of the Supreme Court.

But that may be asking too much.

The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee, Tuesday, Aug. 30

What pessimists most feared has come to pass: Iraq’s three major factions — Shiite, Sunni and Kurd — have failed to agree on a draft constitution that Sunnis see as stacked against them by Shiites and Kurds. With no vote by the National Assembly, the document now faces a popular vote on Oct. 15. Sunnis, a 20 percent minority that has ruled Iraq for generations, are a critical factor in creating an Iraqi state. Without a major role, Sunni support for Iraqi insurgents may remain high. And if Sunnis lose as much as they fear, they may seek alliances elsewhere, including in Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Sunnis have company in their disenchantment. Secular Iraqis, including many Shiites, are unhappy with language that could give Shiite clerics power to relegate women to a subservient status. Defenders of the draft, including President Bush, insist that all Iraqis are assured of equal rights, but that may be wishful thinking.

The Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times, Tuesday, Aug. 30

Drug companies develop their products with the public’s welfare in mind. America is dependent on the pharmaceutical industry to provide pills and medicines to alleviate pain and suffering, vaccines that prevent disease and drugs that help the body heal.

Americans demand drugs that help them feel better and live a more productive, longer life.

An element of risk sometimes accompanies the use of specific drugs. It is important for companies to understand what negative side effects may result from their products and present the information clearly and accurately to consumers and their doctors. In deciding whether to market a product, companies must wisely weigh the potential dangers against the benefits.

If the consumer understands the risks of a product that is on the market, then he or she can make a decision based on a doctor’s advice.

In the recent case involving Vioxx, in which a Texas man died in 2001 after taking the painkiller made by Merck, the company was accused of knowing the potential heart risks but not telling the public. …

If the company was clearly wrong, it should pay a reasonable penalty. If there is reasonable doubt, yet Merck is being pursued by litigation attorneys sensing the company is vulnerable, that is another matter.

Such cases are not always cut and dried. A society that depends heavily on medicinal drugs should be careful not to unfairly penalize companies that provide them.

When that happens, everyone suffers.