| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Little
Citizen
Username: Boblittle
Post Number: 303
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 3:10 pm: | 
|
The first big case of John Roberts' chiefdom is today's Gonzalez v. Oregon. A six-vote majority denied the federal government the power to block Oregon's assisted suicide statute. The dissenters were Scalia, Thomas and Roberts, in his first dissent.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/17jan20061050/www.supremecourtus.gov/opi nions/05pdf/04-623.pdf |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4960
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 3:26 pm: |
|
"The dissenters were Scalia, Thomas and Roberts ..."
I'm shocked, shocked that Roberts joined in a decision with those two. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5062
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Kennedy will replace O'Connor as the squish once Alito gets there.
If Stephens or Ginsburg could just call it quits.... |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2862
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Actually, Nohero, you should be shocked, or at least a little surprised. When this issue first came up when Roberts was in private practice, I heard a SC Reporter today say that at that time Roberts had given a radio interview coming down squarely on the side of state's being able to decide on this issue; that it was not a federal issue at all.
Since he only signed the dissent but did not give an opinion, it is impossible to know why he chose to join Scalia and Thomas. Could be he has drunk from the chalice of the extreme right; equally as likely that he had some technical problems with the decision, such as believing that the Controlled Substances Act does indeed give the AG the authority to overrule states in this case, and that this was the intent of Congress.
We can have no idea what he was thinking at this point. I find it interesting that the most conservative justices these days always choose federal intervention and control over right to life issues, when cons in the past always championed state's rights in order to stop federal efforts to break Jim Crow laws. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5063
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
If conservatives prevailed on Roe, the authority or decision would be left with the states, ESL. Your right-to-life example is a flawed one, unless they pulled a Blackmun and drew up legislation and passed it by themselves at the same time. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2863
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 5:18 pm: |
|
No, actually, I think you misunderstand, cjc, and I think the example is spot on, if I do say so myself. If you are for state's rights in right to life matters, then you are for state's rights in right to life matters. Scalia and Thomas (and perhaps Roberts; we'll see) are inconsistent on this. For that matter, I think Ginsburg, Stevens, et al are also inconsistent on this issue, only in the other direction.
Both issues--assisted suicide and abortion--go to the heart of how one understands human dignity, quality of life, and personal responsibilty. Either you believe that states can legislate this, or the feds can legislate this, but you can't have it both ways (and you cannot simply remain silent on it). This is not a defense of either position, just pointing out an inconsistency.
I think they are going have to carry Stevens or Ginsburg out on a pine plank while Bush is in office--which may happen, you never know. If Frist wins, or someone with similar views, they are going to be inhaling embalming fluid to try to stay seated on the bench for another presidential term. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10315
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Cjc, I am not sure. The decision today shows that the right wing of the court will interfere in state matters pertaining to "the right to life". |
Robert Little
Citizen
Username: Boblittle
Post Number: 304
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Today's decision had nothing to do with the commerce clause (and federal power), according to every justice, so it's not an example of the right being hypocritical. (For that, see Scalia on medical marijuana law term, where he joined the left in upholding federal power over states on something that had no impact on interstate commerce.)
So it was really a pure do-you-like-assisted-suicide question rather than one like medical marijuana, where you had to figure whether justices were deciding based on it being marijuana or on the underlying federalism question. Today, Thomas and Scalia wrote separate opinions; Roberts joined Scalia's.
My guess is that it shows Roberts to be quite conservative on social issues, which should come as no surprise. It doesn't answer the more interesting, open, question of whether he is likely, as was Rehnquist, to overturn federal statutes as not implicating interstate commerce sufficiently. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4961
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 8:27 pm: |
|
Well, in the end the Scalia dissent rests upon the conclusion that the Attorney General has the authority to define what is a "legitimate medical purpose", over the determination of the State of Oregon, where such decisions had been assumed to have been placed. And Justice Scalia certainly related this determination, to those made under the Commerce Clause. As the Scalia dissent (joined by Chief Justice Roberts) concludes -
Quote:In sum, the Directive’s first conclusion—namely that physician-assisted suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose”—is supported both by the deference we owe to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations and by the deference we owe to its interpretation of the statute. The other two conclusions — (2) that prescribing controlled drugs to assist suicide violates the CSA, and (3) that such conduct is also “inconsistent with the public interest” — are inevitable consequences of that first conclusion. Moreover, the third conclusion, standing alone, is one that the Attorney General is authorized to make.
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. But then, neither is prohibiting the recreational use of drugs or discouraging drug addiction among the enumerated powers. From an early time in our national history, the Federal Government has used its enumerated powers, such as its power to regulate interstate commerce, for the purpose of protecting public morality — for example, by banning the interstate shipment of lottery tickets, or the interstate transport of women for immoral purposes. See Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308, 321–323 (1913); Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321, 356 (1903). Unless we are to repudiate a long and well-established principle of our jurisprudence, using the federal commerce power to prevent assisted suicide is unquestionably permissible. The question before us is not whether Congress can do this, or even whether Congress should do this; but simply whether Congress has done this in the CSA. I think there is no doubt that it has. If the term “legitimate medical purpose” has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death.
|
Robert Little
Citizen
Username: Boblittle
Post Number: 305
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 9:53 pm: |
|
That's right, he and every other justice say commerce clause is not implicated (that is, the federal government can exercise authority constitutionally). So the criteria was statutory interpretation, not federal power. Or, more likely, what one thinks, politically, of assisted suicide.
This points to the pointlessness of the senate hearings on Roberts and Alito. Since most questions before the court are political rather than legal, the public should hear about a nominee's political views. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4223
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 11:28 pm: |
|
The cons are every bit as results-oriented as the libs. The libs are at least honest about it. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page