[Qwinn]

"And don't be surprised if the precedent set tonight doesn't get invoked to require federal judges to look at each and every terminally ill case in the United States."

Uh, I take it you didn't even read the bill then, if you're going to make a claim like this:



]36 SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
37 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not
38 otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the
39 several States.

40 SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.
41 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on

42 any court to consider any claim related--

43 (1) to assisting suicide, or

44 (2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

45 SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
46 Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future

47 legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

48 SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION
49 ACT OF 1990.

50 Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient

51 Self-Determination Act of 1990.

[kms61]

But there are people on other threads at this very site talking about this law only being "the first step." This is not the end of the controversy, it's just the beginning.

[sinkspur]

It doesn't matter what the bill says. It only matters how the federal courts interpet the bill.

It appears that the authors of the bill were so concerned they wrote meaningless language in the bill, as if that ever stopped a federal judge.

[BigSkyFreeper]

You're putting your eggs all in one basket and your faith entirely on a Liberal judge? Strange.

[verity]

A precedent has already been set wherein the Judiciary finds rights that never existed.

Lawyers are a devious bunch.