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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The authority desired by the government is inconsistent with the design of the statute in other fundamental respects
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.
It sounds to me like the dissenters only focused on narrow interpretation, namely that there should not be any such thing as assisted suicide.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.
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.
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?
aps said:Woo hoo!!!! This is fantastic news! I fully support this law. :2dancing:
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.
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.
Yes, God, we're listening.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?
Oh, I guess it was your desire to play God that confused me.Engimo said:What? Hate to break it to you, but I'm no deity.
KCConservative said:Oh, I guess it was your desire to play God that confused me.
That's a good liberal. Good boy.Engimo said:especially to those who do not believe in a God.