Supreme Court upholds Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law

[aps]

Woo hoo!!!! This is fantastic news! I fully support this law. :2dancing:

 

[danarhea]

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.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: 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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

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]

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]

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

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]

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[Moderator Mode]

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

[/Moderator Mode]

 

[tryreading]

Re: 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.

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.

 

[Alex]

Re: Supreme Court Upholds Assisted Suicide

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]

“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.

 

[KCConservative]

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.

 

[JOHNYJ]

It was sorta upside down.The Conservative members of the Court supported the state while the more liberal ones supported the individual.

 

[Engimo]

Yes, God, we're listening.

What? Hate to break it to you, but I'm no deity.

 

[KCConservative]

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]

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.

 

[KCConservative]

especially to those who do not believe in a God.

That's a good liberal. Good boy.