<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Supreme Court Dismisses Major Tobacco Case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jonathanturley.org/2009/03/31/supreme-court-dismisses-major-tobacco-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jonathanturley.org/2009/03/31/supreme-court-dismisses-major-tobacco-case/</link>
	<description>Res ipsa loquitur (&#34;The thing itself speaks&#34;)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 04:39:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob, Esq.</title>
		<link>http://jonathanturley.org/2009/03/31/supreme-court-dismisses-major-tobacco-case/#comment-45697</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob, Esq.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanturley.org/?p=9519#comment-45697</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not that I&#039;m all that interested, but procedurally, how did SCOTUS obtain jurisdiction over a case decided on adequate &amp; independent state grounds?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not that I&#8217;m all that interested, but procedurally, how did SCOTUS obtain jurisdiction over a case decided on adequate &amp; independent state grounds?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mespo727272</title>
		<link>http://jonathanturley.org/2009/03/31/supreme-court-dismisses-major-tobacco-case/#comment-45652</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mespo727272]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:55:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanturley.org/?p=9519#comment-45652</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Truly an unusual result given the usual coziness on display between the highest courts of the land. I wonder if this was more an ideologically based &quot;don&#039;t tread on me&quot; states&#039; rights decision, or a political nose-thumbing given the rightward tilt of SCOTUS. Even the inscrutable have their own language -- easily recognizable by their own kind. We need an interpreter!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Truly an unusual result given the usual coziness on display between the highest courts of the land. I wonder if this was more an ideologically based &#8220;don&#8217;t tread on me&#8221; states&#8217; rights decision, or a political nose-thumbing given the rightward tilt of SCOTUS. Even the inscrutable have their own language &#8212; easily recognizable by their own kind. We need an interpreter!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

