A New Jersey superior court judge Monday upheld a Friday jury verdict  for Merck & Co, finding that the company had given adequate warning to physicians of the risks associated with its painkiller Vioxx. Judge Carol Higbee rejected a motion by plaintiffs attorney Mark Lanier disputing a finding that the drug company had warned doctors prescribing Vioxx that a 2004 study showed the drug doubled the risk of heart attack or stroke in patients who took it for longer than 18 months; Lanier represents the estate of a deceased man whose fatal heart attack is alleged to have been caused by the drug.

Merck faces more than 27,000 lawsuits from people who say they were harmed by the once $2.5 billion-a-year drug before it was pulled from the market in September of 2004. Merck has set aside $1 billion to fight every Vioxx court challenge. In November 2006, a federal judge declined to certify a national class action suit, ruling that it made more sense to try the cases in their respective states of origin.

In a unanimous decision, the justices said that the four Republicans were not entitled to sue in an effort to replace a redistricting plan ordered by a court with one passed by a Republican-controlled state legislature.

A Democratic state judge drew up the first redistricting plan in 2002, while the Republican Legislature drew one up in 2003.

The court plan had been put in place when a divided Colorado General Assembly was unable to agree on one in time for the 2002 election.

In their lawsuit, the Republican voters say the court-imposed map violates a right of citizens under the U.S. Constitution to vote for congressional candidates in districts created by state legislatures.

In an unsigned opinion, the justices said that the only injury the Republican voters allege is that the Elections Clause had not been followed.

"This injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past," the court stated.

Citing earlier rulings, the justices said the Republicans must have more than a general interest common to all members of the public in order to pursue the case.

Last year, a U.S. District Court in Colorado had ruled that the Republicans could proceed with their lawsuit asserting an Elections Clause violation.

The Colorado case is the Supreme Court's latest foray into congressional redistricting battles. Last year, the justices addressed a messy redistricting fight in Texas, ruling that the Constitution does not bar states from redrawing political lines in mid-decade when one party or the other senses an advantage.

The decision grew out of a court review of a Texas redistricting plan orchestrated in 2003 by Tom DeLay, who was a Republican congressional leader at the time.

The Colorado dispute also involved a lawsuit brought by the Democratic state attorney general. It led to a Colorado Supreme Court decision against the Republican legislative plan in 2003. The Colorado Supreme Court said the state constitution restricts congressional redistricting to once per decade and that the legislature's plan was the second plan.

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian angered Chinese nationalists by renewing his call for independence from China and a new constitution.

Speaking at a dinner in Taipei, Chen said the people of Taiwan did not want to be considered China's 23rd province, the Taipei Times reported Monday.

"Taiwan will say yes to independence," he said. "Taiwan will be correctly named, Taiwan will have a new constitution, Taiwan will develop. Taiwan needs a new constitution in order to become a normal, complete country."

Chang Jung-kung of the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party told reporters the remarks were "an attempt to provoke China when it comes to the issue of cross-straits relations," while Hwang Yih-jiau of the opposition People First Party said Chen was "using rhetoric to stir up independence-unification issues for political gains."

A three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit threw out a lawsuit challenging Ohio's death penalty procedure Friday on the grounds that the claim was filed too late. In the 2-1 opinion, judges Richard Fred Suhrheinrich and Edward Eugene Siler decided that the statute of limitations on the inmate's 42 USC 1983 method of execution challenge would have run at the latest two years following the 2001 decision that made lethal injection Ohio's only form of execution. Plaintiff Cooey did not file his challenge until December of 2004.

Last year Ohio executed its first prisoner using modified lethal injection procedures aimed at preventing extreme pain during an execution. The procedures were changed last June following a difficult May execution where staff struggled to find a vein to administer the lethal injection cocktail, and the one they did use collapsed before injection.

The US Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) Thursday agreed to extend by 18 months the compliance timeline for the REAL ID Act until December 31, 2009. In addition to the extension of the deadline imposed on states, DHS will allow states to use as much as 20 percent of the money allocated by the agency to ensure compliance. The proposed changes follow resistance by state and federal lawmakers, who questioned the feasibility of implementing uniform driver's license standards under the act before the original May 2008 deadline, and aim at assuaging concerns over the cost of the new regulations.

The REAL ID Act, initially drafted after the Sept 11 attacks and designed to discourage illegal immigration, attempts to make it more difficult for terrorists to fraudulently obtain US driver's licenses and other government IDs by mandating that states require birth certificates or similar documentation and also consult national immigration databases before issuing IDs. The law is also meant to make it more difficult for potential terrorists to board aircraft or enter federal government buildings. After controversy and strenuous opposition from civil libertarians it finally passed in 2005 as part of an emergency supplemental appropriations defense spending bill.

Belgium has become the first country to criminalize investment in companies that make cluster bombs. Legislation passed the Belgian Senate on Thursday, and the Parliament plans to publish a list of companies that manufacture cluster munitions. Belgian banks KBC and Fortis have already terminated their investments in such companies, and KBC has published its own list of manufacturers. The new law will prohibit Belgian banks from owning shares in cluster bomb manufacturers or offering them credit.

Last week, 46 countries pledged to develop a new international treaty to ban the use of cluster bombs by 2008 at the Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions. Last year, Belgium was the first country to ban cluster bombs. Although the US did not attend the Oslo conference, top Democratic lawmakers recently introduced a bill in the US Senate that would ban federal funds for the use, sale or transfer of cluster bombs. Cluster munitions, which have been used by at least 23 countries, are considered by many to be inaccurate weapons designed to spread damage indiscriminately and could therefore be considered illegal under multiple provisions of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (1977).