• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supreme Court upholds Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Woo hoo!!!! This is fantastic news! I fully support this law. :2dancing:
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

In a landmark 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Oregon Assisted Suicide law, citing that the Oregon law trumped Federal law.

Personally, I find it quite ironic that Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas, who are supposed to Conservative, rejected the 10th Amendment argument, and wanted Federal government intrusion into one of the most personal decisions one can make - whether to end one's own life because the quality of that life, due to terminal cancer, AIDS, or other illness, is not worth living. IMHO, if someone chooses to end his or her own life because they cannot stand the pain of the limited amount of life that his left, it is none of the government's business.

Article is here.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,338
Reaction score
13,571
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

danarhea said:
In a landmark 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Oregon Assisted Suicide law, citing that the Oregon law trumped Federal law.

Personally, I find it quite ironic that Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas, who are supposed to Conservative, rejected the 10th Amendment argument, and wanted Federal government intrusion into one of the most personal decisions one can make - whether to end one's own life because the quality of that life, due to terminal cancer, AIDS, or other illness, is not worth living. IMHO, if someone chooses to end his or her own life because they cannot stand the pain of the limited amount of life that his left, it is none of the government's business.

Article is here.
Yet another one that the Religious Right and Social Conservatives have lost. It must really suck to be one of them because they never win anything.

Ironically, Scalia and Thomas have time and time again proven themselves to be the two biggest judicial activists in the Supreme Court. They consistently interject their personal and religious views into their rulings. This could not have been more evident than when Scalia in the Texas sodomy case not only voted to uphold the Texas law, but also went into a long tirade against homosexuality in his decision.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

The case was decided because "The authority desired by the government is inconsistent with the design of the statute in other fundamental respects"

That is, the law doesnt let the Feds do what the Feds wanted to do.

The decision (as described in your link) didn't thave anything to do with the 10th amendment.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

M14 Shooter said:
The case was decided because "The authority desired by the government is inconsistent with the design of the statute in other fundamental respects"

That is, the law doesnt let the Feds do what the Feds wanted to do.

The decision (as described in your link) didn't thave anything to do with the 10th amendment.
It doesnt? Lets see.

1) The 10th Amendment states that powers not designated to the Federal government by the Constitution belong to the states and to the people.

2) From the link:

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.
Argument over.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

danarhea said:
It doesnt? Lets see.
1) The 10th Amendment states that powers not designated to the Federal government by the Constitution belong to the states and to the people.
The court didnt rule that the Fed Gvmnt didnt have the power to create legislation that would allow the administration to do what it did, it said that the legislation in place did not allow the administration to do what it did.

The USSC did not strike the legislation on the grounds that the Fed Gvmtn did not have the power to create legislation, it struck the action of the government because the legislation did not confer the powers claimed.

Argument over.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I support it too. I'm more than a little disappointed at John Roberts dissent though. I was hoping that he'd be more of a strict constructionist than a conservative activist, but I guess that hope was just wishful thinking.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

M14 Shooter said:
The court didnt rule that the Fed Gvmnt didnt have the power to create legislation that would allow the administration to do what it did, it said that the legislation in place did not allow the administration to do what it did.

The USSC did not strike the legislation on the grounds that the Fed Gvmtn did not have the power to create legislation, it struck the action of the government because the legislation did not confer the powers claimed.

Argument over.
The existing legislation belongs to the state of Oregon. The ruling plainly stated that the Federal government did not have the right to trump the state's own laws. But gotta hand it to you for your try at word parsing and hair splitting. It was entertaining.
 

M14 Shooter

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

danarhea said:
The existing legislation belongs to the state of Oregon. The ruling plainly stated that the Federal government did not have the right to trump the state's own laws. But gotta hand it to you for your try at word parsing and hair splitting. It was entertaining.
Holy crap.

Read the relevant part of the ruling:
The authority desired by the government is inconsistent with the design of the statute in other fundamental respects
The statue in question here is a FEDERAl statute; the statute was not struck, the action taken pursuant to it was. There's nothing here that says Congress didnt have the power to pass the statute.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is certainly good news. I think one of the most inhumane things that can be done to a person is forcing them to live through intense pain that leads to their inevitable death. If a person that is terminally ill wishes to end their life in a dignified manner and is in a sound state of mind when they make that decision, who are we to force them to live?
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
I support it too. I'm more than a little disappointed at John Roberts dissent though. I was hoping that he'd be more of a strict constructionist than a conservative activist, but I guess that hope was just wishful thinking.
Please do not refer to Robert's dissent as Conservative activism. Strict construction of the Constitution is a Conservative concept. Robert's dissent was not based on the principles of Conservatism.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
Please do not refer to Robert's dissent as Conservative activism. Strict construction of the Constitution is a Conservative concept. Robert's dissent was not based on the principles of Conservatism.
It sounds to me like the dissenters only focused on narrow interpretation, namely that there should not be any such thing as assisted suicide.

Fortunately the majority upheld the 9th Circuit's ruling and the Oregon law. It's interesting to note, however, that had the Court struck down the ruling and thereby the law that it would have been Conservatives legislating from the Bench. Why do I get the feeling all of those in this community who just love to use the ridiculous term "strict constructionist" as mandatory will justify Roberts dissent?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
Please do not refer to Robert's dissent as Conservative activism. Strict construction of the Constitution is a Conservative concept. Robert's dissent was not based on the principles of Conservatism.
Right-wing activism, then. The point I was making is that the Roberts/Scalia/Thomas dissents certainly were not based on the Constitution, but rather their personal or political averseness to physician-assisted suicide.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
26 X World Champs said:
It sounds to me like the dissenters only focused on narrow interpretation, namely that there should not be any such thing as assisted suicide.

Fortunately the majority upheld the 9th Circuit's ruling and the Oregon law. It's interesting to note, however, that had the Court struck down the ruling and thereby the law that it would have been Conservatives legislating from the Bench. Why do I get the feeling all of those in this community who just love to use the ridiculous term "strict constructionist" as mandatory will justify Roberts dissent?
Agreed. Many right-wingers pretend to take the moral high ground of strict constructionism, when in reality they want no such thing. None of the current Supreme Court justices are strict constructionists, and only a very small number of federal judges (e.g. Janice Rogers Brown) are strict constructionists. Sad but true. :(
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
aps said:
Woo hoo!!!! This is fantastic news! I fully support this law. :2dancing:
I agree. I agree with the law and the concept that the federal government should let indiviual states decide such issues.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
[Moderator Mode]

Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide and Supreme Court upholds Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law threads merged...

[/Moderator Mode]
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

danarhea said:
In a landmark 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Oregon Assisted Suicide law, citing that the Oregon law trumped Federal law.

Personally, I find it quite ironic that Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas, who are supposed to Conservative, rejected the 10th Amendment argument, and wanted Federal government intrusion into one of the most personal decisions one can make - whether to end one's own life because the quality of that life, due to terminal cancer, AIDS, or other illness, is not worth living. IMHO, if someone chooses to end his or her own life because they cannot stand the pain of the limited amount of life that his left, it is none of the government's business.

Article is here.
I just want those pseudo-pious control freaks (Ashcroft, et al) out of my personal life, out of Michael Schiavo's personal life, and out of pregnant women's private lives.
 
Last edited:

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

M14 Shooter said:
Holy crap.

Read the relevant part of the ruling:


The statue in question here is a FEDERAl statute; the statute was not struck, the action taken pursuant to it was. There's nothing here that says Congress didnt have the power to pass the statute.
He is right here. I read the ruling and it does not strike down the law. It seriously criticizes the attorney general and states that no interpretation of the law in question gives the feds a right to overrule state law on assisted suicide.

It is also interesting that Kennedy voted with the liberals. He has in the past, of course, but he usually goes the conservative way. Anyone think that age is making him more liberal?
 

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
“The Court’s decision today is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the Federal Government’s business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. The prohibition or deterrence of assisted suicide is certainly not among the enumerated powers conferred on the United States by the Constitution, and it is within the realm of public morality (bonos mores) traditionally addressed by the so-called police power of the States.” (SCALIA, J., dissenting)

I think he is saying that if they had just shot them in the head with a bullet (an uncontrolled substance), and put the sick animal down, he would not have dissented.

It is just a matter of time before the “liberal” hypocrites that lampooned Scalia for abandoning states rights will claim assisted suicide is a fundamental human right to determine our destiny, as in the Lawrence v. Texas decision claiming “the State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny,” and that other so-called “bible belt” States have no right to outlaw assisted suicide or control any other destiny of a right to choose. It won’t be long before they will have temples in every State where they put on a pointy hat with stars and moons, and have terminally ill volunteers to sacrifice to Gaia, before they feast on fried placenta and embryo hushpuppies at the orgy, where strangers off the street throw alms of silver in the laps of “virgins” before the opening ceremony in the garden.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Engimo said:
This is certainly good news. I think one of the most inhumane things that can be done to a person is forcing them to live through intense pain that leads to their inevitable death. If a person that is terminally ill wishes to end their life in a dignified manner and is in a sound state of mind when they make that decision, who are we to force them to live?
Yes, God, we're listening.
 
Last edited:

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
It was sorta upside down.The Conservative members of the Court supported the state while the more liberal ones supported the individual.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Engimo said:
What? Hate to break it to you, but I'm no deity.
Oh, I guess it was your desire to play God that confused me.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
Oh, I guess it was your desire to play God that confused me.
The phrase "playing God" is nonsensical, especially to those who do not believe in a God. How is allowing someone who wants to die the ability to do so anything but humane? What right do we have to force someone to undergo unneccesary pain that they do not want to - it's akin to torture.
 
Top Bottom