| Author |
Message |
    
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 3645
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 8:37 pm: | 
|
Comments? Good or bad?
Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law
Justices Rebuke Former Attorney General Ashcroft
By GINA HOLLAND, AP
WASHINGTON (Jan. 17) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the Bush administration's attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die, protecting Oregon's one-of-a-kind assisted-suicide law.
Charles Dharapak, AP
Oregon's assisted suicide law covers only those with incurable diseases and six months or less left to live.
It was the first loss for Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court's most conservative members - Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - in a long but restrained dissent.
The administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to pursue Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court said in a rebuke to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
The 6-3 ruling could encourage other states to consider copying Oregon's law, used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people in that state. The decision, one of the biggest expected from the court this year, also could set the stage for Congress to attempt to outlaw assisted suicide.
"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority - himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
With this decision Kennedy showed signs of becoming a more influential swing voter after O'Connor departs. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins more liberal members on cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment.
In some ways, the decision was an anticlimactic end to the court's latest clash over assisted suicide.
The case was argued in October on Roberts' second day on the bench, and he strongly hinted that he would back the Bush administration. Some court watchers had expected O'Connor to be the decisive vote, which could have delayed the case until her successor was on the court. The Senate is set to vote soon on nominee Samuel Alito.
Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before, most recently in 1997 when the court unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die. That decision, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, left room for states to set their own rules.
The Tuesday ruling, and dissents, were tinged with an understanding about the delicate nature of the subject. The court itself is aging and the death of Rehnquist this past September after a yearlong fight with cancer was emotional for the justices.
Scalia said in his dissent that the court's ruling "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."
At the same time, Scalia said federal officials have the power to regulate doctors in prescribing addictive drugs and "if the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death."
He was joined in the dissent by Thomas and Roberts. Roberts did not write separately to explain his vote. Thomas also wrote his own dissent.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life, a culture of life that is built on valuing life at all stages."
The court majority dealt harshly with Ashcroft, who in 2001 declared that Oregon doctors who helped people die would be violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. Lower courts prevented any punishment while Ashcroft's authority was contested by the state of Oregon, a physician, pharmacist and terminally ill patients.
Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."
Oregon's law, which was passed by voters, covers only extremely sick people - those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind. At least two doctors must agree the ill have six months or less to live before they can use the law.
"For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions," said state Solicitor General Mary Williams.
The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."
The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws - only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it still could have ramifications outside of Oregon.
"This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration.
The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
01/17/06 16:01 EST
BTW Here are the results (so far) from the poll AOL is taking?:
Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision on Oregon's assisted suicide law?
Yes 85%
No 15%
|
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 15
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 10:27 pm: |
|
The court didn't go far enough. The Bushies should also be stopped from prosecuting physicians for treating pain. If the physician gives out too much pain meds,; loss of license and/or jail.
I don't want Bush or Ashcroft or Santorum telling me how much pain I should endure. The only excemption to my argument is such prosecution as pertains to Limbaugh. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2222
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 11:25 pm: |
|
I was listening to Bloomberg radio today, and they were talking about this case. Since the crux of the case seemed to be about a State's ability to supersede Federal law, the commentator made an interesting observation that this could eventually impact Roe v Wade. While situationally one might think this supports Roe, (an individual's right to do what they want with their own body), from a legal standpoint (IANAL), it appears to throw a monkey wrench into the idea that the Feds can supersede State laws on medical "procedures." |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5617
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 8:09 am: |
|
Good.
As the son of someone who could have benefitted from such a law, I am glad to see it upheld.
And glad to know that hospice exists. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3958
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 8:34 am: |
|
Rastro,
The best thing that could happen would be for Roe v Wade to be overturned and abortion rights become a matter of state law.
I would like to see a Supreme Court nominee hearing where the questioning isn't focused on the nominee's views on abortion. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2236
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 6:09 pm: |
|
tjohn,
Living in a rational state, I would tend to agree with you on that. But consider the case recently sent back to the lower court on the NH abortion law. Many states are working to severely curtail abortion. If they were doing it by alleviating the causes of abortion, I'd be all for it. But they simply want to criminalize abortion.
From my limited understanding of law, Roe is supposed to have been a bad decision (from a legal perspective). But as has been said in another thread, if abortion becomes illegal in a state, not everyone will be able to travel to another state to have it done. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5071
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:25 pm: |
|
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting editorial on this. They applauded that states rights were upheld, this time by 'born again' liberals rather than the conservatives they hoped would lead that push.
However, they did allow that in Scalia's dissent that some sloppy and twisted reasoning went into Kennedy's rationale (surprise!) that changed the meaning of what medicine is. Namely, medical procedures are in fact those which preserve life or mitigate pain rather than end life. They basically said it was bad reasoning, but it's good bad reasoning this time. Sounds like Roe to me.
And also, the Supreme Court didn't legalize suicide. They just said the DoJ can't supercede the supervision of the state. The state passed a law saying assisted suicide is legal. That state could just as easily pass a law saying it's illegal. As could Congress on a national level.
Thomas dissent was equally cutting. That same court ruled that the Feds could enforce a law against medical marijuana, but now says the Feds could not enforce a law where controlled substances are used to take life.
Pretty lame. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 366
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 8:02 am: |
|
CJC-
Were we on the schedule yesterday? 
I also read the editorial. They did indeed praise the "liberal" members of the SC upholding state rights but somewhat cautiously. As stated in the article, did they uphold state rights in respects to the 10th amendment and constitutional integrity or was it just a means to protect a position they agree on (assisted suicide)?
I am hoping for the former but not holding my breath....
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10326
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 8:40 am: |
|
I have never read the medical pot law opinion. However, it was clearly a dodge to allow people to buy mary jane. Heck, Doctors were advertising that they would write presciptions.
I don't know if this was covered in the decision, but it should have been.
|
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5626
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 9:23 am: |
|
Bob K.."a dodge to allow people to buy Mary Jane". You are not foolish enough to think that the medical marijuana issue has anything to do with one's ability to procure the stuff, right? Only with the criminality of having it. And the regulatory supervision of its growth and dispensing.
Buying "Mary Jane" was not/is not/will never be/ effected by the medical usage laws. And just for fun 9 states have passed initiatives to allow for such usage Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. And currently only two states have a law on the books allowing it, Hawaii and Vermont. Both laws apply to patients who are very sick. Hawaii's law only prevents patients from being prosecuted under city and state law and Vermonts allows for the use in patients with AIDS, cancer, or Multiple Sclerosis.
Any and all marijuana used in controlled tests comes from NIDA who doles it out for two studies currently underway in CA.
Personally, they should legalize the stuff, de-stigmatize it, and tax it. Talk about a revenue stream..
Plus, I wouldn't mind going into that kind of smokey restaurant. Imagine how much the checks would go up at places like that.
"Uh, waiter...actually that cake looks really good, can I have half of it??" |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10329
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 10:05 am: |
|
Duncan, LOL. I don't think using marijuana for personal use, either medical or recreational, should be a crime. You can also make a very good case for legalizing and taxing it. Heck you could pick up your Maui Wowi at Maplewood Stationers along with a copy of the NY Times and a Mounds bar. I am not quite sure that I am quite to that point, but if the boys and girls down in Trenton have the guts to pass such a law, fine.
The point I was making, although very badly, was that in California the medical marijuana law was used to circumvent the stupid criminal laws concerning use and possession of pot. I don't think too many judges would like to hang their reputation on supporting something like that. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page