High court upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law
6-3 majority says state powers trump federal rules; Roberts' first dissent
Karen Bleier / AFP - Getty Images file
The Oregon case drew supporters of the physician-assisted suicide law when the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Oct. 5.
NBC VIDEO
• Assisted suicide upheld
Jan. 17: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the law, saying that state powers trump federal authority.
Updated: 1:01 p.m. ET Jan. 17, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.
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. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting with the majority for the first time.
That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10891536/
The ruling is more of a statutory interpretation than of one granting a substantive right; simply put it decided that Congress never intended that the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce in drugs reached so far as to punish a doctor for administering a drug causing death under a state allowed suicide law.
In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that states could ban assisted suicide, but the question here was could states allow them in the face of federal government hostility. The answer given is "Yes". We can expect right-wingers in Congress to propose a law specifically granting the executive the power to punish doctors for using drugs in physician assisted suicide even if allowed under applicable state law. Whether it will pass is questionable.
It is also another example of the ideologicalconfusion of the Big Government right-wingers like Bush and Ashcroft; States Rights and local control ain't what it used to be, though they still pay lip service to it.
Originally posted by no1marauderI find it painfully ironic that Republicans -- the party typically
It is also another example of the ideologicalconfusion of the Big Government right-wingers like Bush and Ashcroft; States Rights and local control ain't what it used to be, though they still pay lip service to it.
associated with States' Rights -- have been waging this war.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThey've done the same thing with California's Medical Marijuana law. Many of their proposals would enhance federal power and pre-empt state law. The so-called "Tort Reform" proposals would set caps on jury awards in ALL states overriding State law. The whole national educational testing that has been imposed is another example. And so it goes; so long as application of enhanced Federal power serves the interests of the rich and powerful or is a part of the Fundamentalist social agenda, it's A-OK.
I find it painfully ironic that Republicans -- the party typically
associated with States' Rights -- have been waging this war.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderThis may be a dumb question then: are Republicans no longer
They've done the same thing with California's Medical Marijuana law. Many of their proposals would enhance federal power and pre-empt state law. The so-called "Tort Reform" proposals would set caps on jury awards in ALL states overriding State law. The whole national educational testing that has been imposed is another example. And so it goes; so long as ...[text shortened]... rests of the rich and powerful or is a part of the Fundamentalist social agenda, it's A-OK.
aligning themselves with States' Rights? Or do they continue to
ally themselves with that stance, while ignoring its tenets in the
measures they take as a party in power?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI think lip service is still paid. Kinda like when the Republicans in their "Contract with America" were big fans of term limits; after THEY became the majority, that issue became less pressing for some reason. Basically, they "talk the talk" but don't "walk the walk".
This may be a dumb question then: are Republicans no longer
aligning themselves with States' Rights? Or do they continue to
ally themselves with that stance, while ignoring its tenets in the
measures they take as a party in power?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAs a complete aside, devolution of power (to cities, regions, Scotland and Wales) is traditionally associated with left(ish) parties in the UK.
This may be a dumb question then: are Republicans no longer
aligning themselves with States' Rights? Or do they continue to
ally themselves with that stance, while ignoring its tenets in the
measures they take as a party in power?
Nemesio
A important philosophical difference between US/UK, or just that right-of-centre parties defend the status quo, whatever that happens to be?
Originally posted by no1marauderI saw this earlier this morning, and the first thing that stuck out to me: the radical activist judges cabal on the SCOTUS has indeed grown by one. We no longer have Scalia and his crazed lapdog Thomas championing anti-Americanism, but now the Chief Justice is a sure Bush Admin puppet. Give it another month and the number will be four.
High court upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law
6-3 majority says state powers trump federal rules; Roberts' first dissent
Karen Bleier / AFP - Getty Images file
The Oregon case drew supporters of the physician-assisted suicide law when the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Oct. 5.
NBC VIDEO
• Assisted suicide upheld
Jan. 17: The Sup ...[text shortened]... Rights and local control ain't what it used to be, though they still pay lip service to it.
Dear other justices, hang on to life just a few more years . . .
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah like Democrats.
I think lip service is still paid. Kinda like when the Republicans in their "Contract with America" were big fans of term limits; after THEY became the majority, that issue became less pressing for some reason. Basically, they "talk the talk" but don't "walk the walk".
