By Spencer Hunt
Enquirer Columbus Bureau

COLUMBUS - Hyde Park hairdresser Vernon Ferrier believes every law-abiding Ohioan can legally carry a concealed firearm right now.

More importantly, he's optimistic at least four of the Ohio Supreme Court's seven justices will soon overturn state laws that bar most Ohioans from concealing handguns under their clothes or in their cars.

His optimism is inspired by Republican Lt. Gov. Maureen O'Connor, who will become the state's newest justice this January.

OHIO SUPREME COURT

Here are the seven justices who make up the state's high court: Thomas J. Moyer, 63, Republican. Chief Justice since 1987; eight years as appeals court judge; four years as executive assistant to Gov. James Rhodes; eight years private practice. Deborah Cook, 50, Republican. Justice since 1995; 9th District Court of Appeals, Akron, 1991-1994; private practice 1976-1991. Maureen O'Connor, 51, Republican. Justice-elect; lieutenant governor 1998 - present; 1995-1998 Summit County Common Pleas Court, 1993-1995; Summit County Probate Court 1985-1993. Paul E. Pfeifer, 60, Republican. Justice since 1993; state senator, 1976-1992, assistant Crawford County prosecutor, 1973-1976; state representative, 1970-1972; assistant Ohio Attorney General, 1967-1970. Alice Robie Resnick, 63, Democrat. Second woman elected to Ohio Supreme Court in 1988; 6th District Ohio Court of Appeals, Toledo, 1983-1989; Toledo Municipal Court, 1976-1983; assistant Lucas County Prosecutor, 1964-1975. Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, 49, Republican. Justice since 1996; Franklin County Common Pleas Court, 1989-1996; private practice, 1979-1988. Francis E. Sweeney, 68, Democrat. Justice since 1993; 8th District Court of Appeals, Cleveland, 1988-1993. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, 1970-1988; assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor, 1963-1970.

"I believe that these justices, that the change of justices, will be enough for them to rule in our favor," Mr. Ferrier said of a lawsuit he and three other Cincinnati-area residents filed.

There's a lot more than guns riding on Justice-elect O'Connor, who defeated Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge Tim Black Nov. 5 in her bid to replace retiring Justice Andrew Douglas.

She also carries the hopes of Ohio Republicans and business groups who've suffered several 4-3 high court setbacks on laws meant to restrict lawsuits and rewrite the state's worker compensation rules.

Justice Douglas, a Republican, has joined with fellow Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Paul E. Pfeifer, and Francis Sweeney in each of those cases. Business groups like the Ohio Chamber of Commerce call them "judicial activists" and have labeled them the "Gang of Four."

With Justice Douglas' departure, Chamber of Commerce President Andrew Doehrel thinks the gang has finally been broken.

"We hope that we're going to return to what the traditional role of the court is," Mr. Doehrel said. "That's to interpret the law, not just strike down laws they don't like."

Mr. Doehrel points to a 4-3 decision handed down Wednesday that rejected a law requiring drug testing of injured workers who file for compensation.

Unlike most cases that work their way through lower courts, the high court decided to hear arguments in this case immediately. "There is no better example than this case of the need for a new philosophy that will hopefully come to this court," Mr. Doehrel said.

Groups representing labor unions and trial lawyers say the court was perfectly within its rights to do what it did. They say business groups call Justice Douglas and his colleagues mavericks simply because they didn't like their rulings.

Richard Mason, director of the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, said he doesn't think the Ohio Supreme Court will stop taking cases directly or making controversial decisions because Justice Douglas is gone.

"This (new) court may be more inclined to take a case filed by a corporation than a general citizen," Mr. Mason said.

Bill Burga, president of the Ohio AFL-CIO isn't willing to brand Justice-elect O'Connor an enemy of workers just yet.

"We just hope that she will interpret the law in a fair way," said Mr. Burga, who campaign for Ms. O'Connor's opponent. "The business community has to understand that they can't win every case."

A look at the Supreme Court's upcoming term shows a few cases that could show how the court's balance of power has changed.

In February, the justices will hear arguments in the case of a man who hurt himself after he tripped over a metal railing in the entrance of a Lorain County Best Buy store. The railing was meant to help employees corral shopping carts brought back from the parking lot.

The case asks the court to expand upon a 4-3 ruling that carved out an exception to Ohio's "open and obvious rule" in personal injury cases. That rule bars lawsuits in situations in which a person injures himself on something he obviously could have avoided.

Justice O'Connor's vote in this case could provide an early indication on how the court might rule on a new law capping jury awards in medical malpractice cases.

The concealed weapons suit will offer another interesting test.

Filing two years ago in a Hamilton County Common Pleas court, Mr. Ferrier and three fellow plaintiffs convinced Judge Robert Ruehlman to throw out laws banning concealed weapons as unconstitutional.

The high court suspended that order and is expected to hear oral arguments sometime next year.

Timothy Smith, an attorney representing Mr. Ferrier, isn't as optimistic as his client.

"I really have no idea where (Ms. O'Connor) stands on this," he said. "I have a strong feeling Justice Douglas was against us."

Even comments from some justices show change is coming.

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer appeared to hint that the new Supreme Court would rule differently in a worker's compensation case that was decided 4-3 earlier this month.

The Dec. 4 ruling allowed a worker who was originally hurt in 1968 to have his compensation benefits recalculated to reflect his average weekly wage in 1996, when his injuries forced him to quit working entirely.

In a dissent, Chief Justice Moyer wrote that he would support overruling a 1998 decision that made the Dec. 4 ruling possible, saying "it is now clear that we exceeded our proper judicial role and unwisely engaged in legislative rewriting of the worker's compensation law."

In an interview, Justice Moyer said he wasn't inviting a new case to be filed on the same subject as much as he was asking the Legislature to pass a new law allowing compensation benefits to be adjusted with the rate of inflation.

"It's not uncommon for a ruling to invite legislative action," Justice Moyer said.

Justice Moyer said he thinks Ms. O'Connor shares his belief that the high court should defer to the General Assembly's power to set policy and make new laws.

He's argued that that's what the court's four-member majority has done, especially in three decisions that declared the state's school funding system unconstitutional.

"It's not for us judges to try to make it better, to try to make a better outcome than a statute would," Justice Moyer said. "That philosophy will have a bearing on how we decide cases."

The chief justice also said it's unfair to make general predictions on what the court will or will not do.

"I think people need to be very careful in predicting how the court will vote on certain issues," he said.

Ms. O'Connor agrees.

"A lot of people enjoy the sport of speculation," Ms. O'Connor said. "What I've said throughout my campaign is that I will do my job impartially without an agenda based on policy."

She also acknowledges that she would vote differently than Justice Douglas has in certain cases.

"I believe in judicial restraint. It is not the court's role to write law," she said. "That's the promise I've made."

E-mail shunt@enquirer.com