Murder in the Supreme Court (Capital Crimes Series Book 3) by Margaret Truman Page B

lower courts across the nation. Poulson seemed to be saying that in this particular case it mattered less what each individual justice believed represented the facts of law in
Nidel
v.
Illinois
than a need to reflect the administration’s antiabortion posture, which in turn reflected the nation’s morality. “It’s ridiculous,” was the way one justice put it to his clerks. “If there’s ever been a case that didn’t lend itself to unanimity, this is it.”
    When Poulson had completed his arguments in the conference, the senior justice was next to speak. Since Conover wasn’t present, his turn was passed on. One after another the justices presented their views of the case based on their reading of the briefs and the oral arguments heard in open court.
    “I don’t understand why we continue to deal with this matter beyond the scope of the legal issue,” Justice Tilling-Masters said. “If it’s the intention of members of this Court to render a sweeping opinion on abortion from legal, philosophical and moral perspectives,
Nidel
v.
Illinois
is not the case to base it on. I said that from the beginning. That’s why I voted against accepting it for review.”
    “I agree,” Morgan Childs said from his chair near the door. “This case is too narrow for that. In accepting it for review we’re being asked to determine whether the federal government has a right to tell a state what it must do with its funding for health care. It isn’t federal money we’re discussing, it’s state money.” He picked up law books that had been opened to specific pages and quoted from previous cases he felt had bearing on
Nidel
v.
Illinois
. “It’s my view that the state of Illinois has a right to determine its policies on state-funded medical care. Naturally, if an individual’s rights are in question anotherelement would be introduced, but I find that situation lacking in this instance.”
    Poulson nodded enthusiastically. “Can we take a preliminary vote?”
    They went around the table, beginning with the Chief. It ended up four to four.
    “I’m afraid I can’t accept this,” Poulson said. “Perhaps there are overlooked factors that we might reconsider.” He started to present his views again when another of the justices, a thin, scholarly man named Ronald Fine, who was second in seniority to Temple Conover, and who often voted with the senior justice on social issues, interrupted. “Chief Justice,” he said in a quiet, level voice tinged with a southern accent, “I believe we have a preliminary vote on this case. Naturally, Justice Conover’s vote will be the deciding one, and I’m sure we are all… well, shall we say, relatively certain how the senior justice will vote.”
    Poulson knew Fine was right on both counts. Still, he did not want to leave the conference in the minority.
    “Let me call Justice Conover,” Fine said, “and inform him of the vote.”
    “Yes,” Poulson said. A wave of anxiety had swept over him; he was anxious to return to the quiet of his chambers.
    There was silence in the room as Fine placed the call to Conover’s house. “Yes, Justice Conover, that’s the way the vote went… Pardon?… Of course, I’ll pass that information on to the others… Oh, just a second, Justice Poulson wants to speak with you.”
    He handed the phone to Poulson. “Temple, how are you feeling?… Good, glad to hear it. You’re voting for Nidel I take it… Yes, I understand. I would like to speak with you when you come in this afternoon… Yes, thank you, you too.”
    “That makes it five to four,” Childs muttered, “for theplaintiff. Somehow, I can’t help but feel that this won’t represent a final vote.”
    “It usually doesn’t,” said Justice Augustus Smith, the Court’s only black member. Known as “Gus” to his friends, he was the most easygoing of the nine; quick-witted and filled with gentle humor. “With Temple writing the majority opinion,” he said, “there’s no way