Posted on 10/05/2005 9:49:39 AM PDT by Brilliant
WASHINGTON - Newly installed Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday sharply questioned a lawyer arguing for preservation of Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, noting the federal government's tough regulation of addictive drugs.
The 50-year-old Roberts, hearing his first major oral argument since succeeding William H. Rehnquist at the helm of the court, seemed skeptical of the Oregon law, and the outcome of this case was as unclear after the argument as before.
At the outset, Roberts laid a barrage of questions on Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson before he could finish his first sentence.
"It's a tough case," noted Justice Anthony Kennedy, a moderate, who with Roberts and others got immersed in one of the most vexing cases of the court's term. Justices pondered whether the federal government has the power to block doctors from helping terminally ill patients end their lives.
As they did so, demonstrators — some carrying signs saying "My Life, My Death, My Decision" — carried their pleas to the courthouse steps.
Inside, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor seemed ready to back the law allowing dying patients to obtain lethal doses of medication from their doctors.
Although O'Connor could provide the fifth vote in Oregon's favor, she likely will be off the court before the case is decided. A 4-4 tie would be decided by a new justice.
Voters in Oregon have twice endorsed doctor-assisted suicide, but the Bush administration has aggressively challenged the state law, the only one of its kind in the nation.
O'Connor immediately challenged Solicitor General Paul Clement, asking if federal drug laws also prevented doctors from participating in the execution of murderers.
Kennedy said he found it "odd" that the U.S. attorney general determined physician-assisted suicide to be an abuse of drug laws, when the state of Oregon strictly limited how the drugs could be administered and in what cases.
"I don't think it's odd," Clement replied, noting that federal laws regulating drug use have been in place for more than 90 years.
The case was heard by justices touched personally by illness. Three justices — O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens — have had cancer, and a fourth — Stephen Breyer — has a spouse who counsels young cancer patients who are dying.
Their longtime colleague, Rehnquist, who once wrote about the "earnest and profound debate" over doctor-assisted suicide, died a month ago after battling untreatable cancer for nearly a year.
In 1997 the court found that the terminally ill have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O'Connor provided a key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state experimentation.
The appeal is a turf battle of sorts, not a constitutional showdown. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's base of religious conservatives, decided in 2001 to pursue doctors who help people die.
Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned, an opposite conclusion than the one reached by Janet Reno, the Clinton administration attorney general.
Oregon filed a lawsuit to defend its law, which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the federal government can trump the state.
"It could be close," said Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke University and former Supreme Court clerk. "It is a wrenching issue. It's one of the most difficult decisions any family needs to make. There's a lot of discomfort with having the government at any level get involved."
Under Rehnquist's leadership the court had sought to embolden states to set their own rules.
The administration lost at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which said that Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."
In Oregon, the first assisted-suicide law won narrow approval, just a 51 percent majority, in 1994. An effort to repeal it in 1997 was rejected by 60 percent of voters.
"There is a real human need" for control over one's life, said cancer patient Charlene Andrews of Salem, Ore. "We are terminal and we know when we have a few weeks left. We know when we're unconscious. We know when we're at the end."
The case before the Supreme Court is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
Oh, that's interesting. Kennedy is now classified by the media as a "moderate." I don't see how anyone who thinks we should apply French law in the US instead of American law could be considered a "moderate," though.
retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor seemed ready to back the law allowing dying patients to obtain lethal doses of medication from their doctors...
News to me.
Why don't people just stop eating when they want to die? I hear it is peaceful and great way to go....what is the problem with that? No need to get the state or Feds involved....just stop eating.
... and O'Connor's a "swing vote" and Rehnquist was "not a true conservative"
Well, we know where Bush stands on state autonomy. The states mean nothing, the federal rules all.
In 1997 the court found that the terminally ill have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Exactly how hard to understand are those few words?
How can one be conscious of being unconscious when unconscious?
Suicide is an embarrassment to society as it speaks of failure, celebrating it is akin to bragging about your drunken brother-in-law's arrest record.
"Why don't people just stop eating when they want to die?"
Many do just that. It works, but takes some time. Some people want to avoid the agony of a painful death, and don't care to suffer longer.
It's a difficult thing, dying of a painful disease. Some people gut it out...others want a way out.
I wonder how good the lawyers were. Roberts asked a good quesion, namely how can you say the Oregon law is takes precedence over conflicting federal laws, but the federal drug laws take precedence over state laws?
Drugs are commerce, and so can be regulated under the commerce clause. Assisted suicide might be commerce, but not necessarily. It depends on whether the assistant gets paid.
Exactly. If the patient being of sound mind makes a decision that they don't want to continue to suffer from a terminal illness what business is it of the government? As long as at least two licensed physicians who specialize in the illness diagnose the patients condition as terminal and the patient requests in writing to end his suffering the government should back off.
Commerce Clause, the most perverted part of the US Constitution.
My main point is no one is stoping someone from killing themselves.....they can stop eating, use a gun, overdose, etc....no need to involve the Feds or the state.
(Please know that I advocate none of these options)
WOW! Starving to death is agony....I had no idea!
Not under a strict constructionist interpetation. No interstate commerce involved, to claim fed authority over this is judicial activism.
Yes, the experience becomes even better....what a great way to die! Has anyone told the people of Oregon? No need to take this all they way to the SCOTUS...just stop eating and drinking.
What this is really all about is another assault on life...devaluing life.....
Medical technology has advanced faster than our humanity.
I certainly agree that a government has the right to tell me that I can't kill others... however, I reject the idea that they can tell me that I can't kill myself, should I choose to do so - and by any means I choose - so long as that means does not cause physical harm to others.
However, assisted suicide takes us back to point # 1:
I agree that a government has the right to tell [doctors] that they can't kill other people.
Under the most expansive interpretation of the commerce clause, the word "interstate" almost gets written out of the Constitution. You can always take drugs across state lines, or drive across state lines to get them. You can't really regulate the interstate commerce in drugs without regulating intrastate commerce as well.
The argument doesn't work with assisted suicide, though. I would bet a buck that if you banned people from making money on assisted suicide, but nevertheless made it legal to do, someone would be willing to do it for free. At that point, it's not commerce at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.