January 17, 2006
AND ALITO GETS US TO FOUR....:
Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Assisted Suicide Law (David G. Savage, January 17, 2006, LA Times)
The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's challenge to the nation's only right-to-die law today and ruled Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft overstepped his authority when he sought to punish the Oregon doctors who helped terminally ill people end their lives.The 6-3 decision was a victory for states and their independent-minded voters, and a defeat for social conservatives.
New Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in his first significant decision, joined Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissent.
It's destined to be a short-lived precedent. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 17, 2006 4:12 PM
Maybe, maybe not. Still might get an actual federalist or two, ya know. There is some sort of cult society going by that label, I hear.
Posted by: ghostcat at January 17, 2006 4:53 PMThere is a tasteless joke to be made regarding the age of Justice Stevens, the subject of the case, and the exact length of the precedent's life, but I will refrain from making it.
Posted by: Timothy at January 17, 2006 4:54 PMIn the eastern Blue states, the population is falling (MA) and the abortion rate is horrific (NY).
Now people in a western Blue state can can murder themselves. Politically, red states win.
Did the 2 justices who flipped from the medical marijuana case even bother to try to explain themselves?
Posted by: b at January 17, 2006 5:00 PMDon't stereotype so quickly there, dude. Many of us Oregonians who support the "ultimate option" vote right-of-center.
Posted by: ghostcat at January 17, 2006 5:01 PMI've just skimmed the decisions, and I highly recommend Justice Thomas' dissent, particularly his Footnote 1. He's a funny guy...
In my quick reading of the majority decision (I have no knowledge of lawyer-stuff, I concede), it seems that the claim is that the gov't does have the right to define & control illegal drugs, but does not have the right to define what is legitimate medical practice? (you must have to be way smarter than Harriet Miers to figure out what the heck that means) Was this decision all about abortion?
Posted by: b at January 17, 2006 5:20 PMTimothy:
If you don't mind, please email it to:
HailVarsity@hotmail.com
Posted by: Matt Murphy at January 17, 2006 5:22 PMNo, the decision is just about 5 old people who think they'll want the plug pulled. Put them on actual life support though and they'll reverse their votes.
Posted by: oj at January 17, 2006 6:23 PMGhostcat,
We must respectfully disagree about this kind of murder. Still, Oregon was blue in 2004.
All best,
Ed
Posted by: Ed Bush at January 17, 2006 7:05 PM'Taint murder, not in my book. If I get to pull the trigger ... or not ... I'm in control, nevermind that the doc sold me the gun.
Posted by: ghostcat at January 17, 2006 7:56 PMAnd Oregon's potentially a Red State. Bush damn near carried it in 2000, and probably would have in 2004 but for our miserable economy here. (NOT his fault ... fall-out from the Tech Bubble.)
Posted by: ghostcat at January 17, 2006 8:01 PMghost:
It's the or not that's the problem, as well as that you aren't now who you'll be then.
Posted by: oj at January 17, 2006 9:16 PMOregon law has both those points covered, to the satisfaction of 2/3 of the electorate. Leave it be and learn.
Posted by: ghostcat at January 17, 2006 9:40 PMYes, the healthy have contempt for the ill and want them dead. The Constitution protects the weak though.
Posted by: oj at January 17, 2006 9:50 PMOregonian's believe in New Hampshire's motto.
Posted by: ghostcat at January 17, 2006 10:12 PMNo they don't or they wouldn't be changing the last word to kill.
Posted by: oj at January 17, 2006 10:16 PMWe're not. We won't. Leave us be and observe.
Posted by: ghostcat at January 17, 2006 11:53 PMGive me liberty so I can kill myself?
Posted by: RC at January 18, 2006 12:35 AMNo, they have more than enough freedom to kill themselves, it's about killing others and forcing others to kill you--it's the opposite of freedom.
Posted by: oj at January 18, 2006 1:06 AMghost:
Ah, but there's the rub, you insist on not being left alone.
Posted by: oj at January 18, 2006 1:11 AM"You" meaning we Oregonians? Au contraire. Very few of us are cursed with a true believer's missionary zeal.
Posted by: ghostcat at January 18, 2006 1:27 AMOrrin is right. If people truly want to kill themselves, they will simply find a way do it themselves. An assisted suicide law is absolutely unnecessary unless the real motive is to allow doctors a special right to murder their patients.
Interestingly, one of the plaintiffs in this case said she needed this law because her doctor told her she was terminally ill...5 YEARS AGO!
Posted by: Vince at January 18, 2006 1:38 AMThis is a statutory, not constitutional, decision. Congress can change the law and prohibit assisted suicide in Oregon and everywhere else.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 18, 2006 7:29 AMVince:
No, it's even worse than that. It's not just to let doctors, hospitals and insurance companies dispose of unwanted patients but to let "loved ones" get rid of them and, worst of all, to give everyone a "right" to compel others to murder them.
Posted by: oj at January 18, 2006 8:19 AMOJ is right. This brutal law will only kill those unwanted by their families. Think Michael Sciavo.
No state has a right to sanction the killing of innocents, no matter how many voters approve it.
Posted by: Bob at January 18, 2006 9:59 AMMore importantly, no individual has a right to force others to behave immorally.
Posted by: oj at January 18, 2006 10:02 AM