[jwalsh07]

PS: You don't understand Scalias holding in Cruzan either. Scalia held that there was nothing in the Constitution proscribing a state from preventing one of their citizens from killing themselves. There is something in the Constitution about the right to life and due process. Federal judicial review of State ordered death sentences is part of that due process.

Did I spell everything OK?

[billbears]

PS: You don't understand Scalias holding in Cruzan either. Scalia held that there was nothing in the Constitution proscribing a state from preventing one of their citizens from killing themselves.

LOL!!! Sure I don't. And your very statement also shows me you never read the Wolfson report. Let's look at Scalia's statement in context?

Justice Scalia has admonished us to rely upon and accept the role of state lawmakers and laws to address issues of this very nature. Though his point of reference was Missouri law relative to an evidentiary standard, his message remains that it is up to states to establish the rules and guidelines in these matters.

I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. (emphasis added) Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)

And while he might not agree with a particular state's method for addressing a matter – he not only defers to the states – but further admonishes us to avoid the politicization of legislation in these matters:

I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that [497 U.S. 261, 293] enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion - requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune. Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497, U.S. 261 (1990)

Tell you what. Go find 9 people in Pinellas County that will set the standard for you in Florida. Because Scalia was clear in Cruzan. It is not, nor was it ever, the business of the national government to get involved with issues such as this. Of course I suppose that could be one small reason they refused to hear the case time and again.

But I don't understand Scalia's decision in Cruzan. Right.....