Rush Limbaugh: Left Backs Death (Again) in Supreme Court Case

There are just a few more things that I want to address you on regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers to be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, and we can couple this with this fun little exercise that I want to present to you today to help illustrate a point. Now, the Supreme Court this morning heard oral arguments in a big case. This is a case about the assisted suicide law in the state of Oregon. The people of Oregon have twice voted by pretty substantial margins for assisted suicide, letting the medical community "off" people who are terminal or who want to be off-ed for whatever reason. The opponents of this have managed to get this case heard by the US Supreme Court. Now, this may not be as easy as you think. I had some conversations today with people, and it's interesting how people approach me -- people who are not, you know, pure conservatives. It's amazing the clichés that they think we conservatives believe in. For example, this one person said to me today, "Well, I want to know what you say about this states' rights. That's all you conservatives talk about is states' rights, states' rights, states' rights, and you don't like the federal government and now what do you think about the Supreme Court hearing this. What about the right to vote out there to have assisted suicide?"

Well, wait, wait, wait, just a second. It's not that easy. You simplify conservatism too much when you say it's simply states' rights versus the federal government or federalism. What's at stake here? Okay, you've got the people -- just as the people in California, by the way, voted for a number of propositions to suspend welfare-type payments to illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, and the federal district court both tell you, "You can't do that. That's unconstitutional." The will of the people was overturned. It wasn't the Supreme Court, but it's still a judge. The will of the people was overturned. It almost happened in Arizona. The California legislature wanted to overturn via legislation another ballot initiative recently in California. I forget what it was about but governor refused to sign it, the Democrats backed down and said, "We were just trying to make a display here of something," but that's only because they didn't win it, and yet here we go again. Now the people of Oregon have said quite clearly in their ballot initiatives that they want to be able to kill themselves or have their doctors kill them if they want to die, and too many people look at this very simply. "Okay, is it states' rights? The people can vote anything they want, including assisted suicide, as long as a majority say, 'Fine, that's what we want in this country,' then that's the way it is and no federal court, no Supreme Court is going to tell us how to live."

On the other hand, is there a compelling interest for the government here to protect and stand for the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And then, furthermore, do you want to turn over to the medical community, which signs an oath or takes an oath, Hippocratic oath to heal and make well and all, you want to turn the decision to kill and who to kill over to them? And if it's not turning the decision on who to kill over to them, do you want to empower them to actually do the killing? "Rush, it's suicide." It's KILLING. We're ending a life here. So where do you go for the answer to this? Is there one right answer to this? I happen to think there is. But others certainly will disagree, and many of the disagreements will come down to something that's very simple, very simple and not complicated at all. It's my life and I can do with it whatever I want, and if I want to end it then it's none of your business. Well, yeah, as far as it goes, but you're not ending your life. You're asking the medical community to do it, and in my mind you might be corrupting the medical community because we know that these kinds of laws do not solve problems; they create new ones, and the new problem that could be created here is that, "Okay, so we're sanctioning the medical community to off people who are terminal or who desire it."

Okay, where could that lead? Well, we saw where abortion led. Abortion is simply the killing of the unwanted or the inconvenient, and that has led to the same type of thinking in getting rid of the seasoned citizen population, the elderly. If they become an inconvenience, "Well, they wouldn't want to live like this. They don't like putting up with this. Let's just get rid of them. Everybody would be better off if they were gone. They've had a good life. Let's just send them on to their Great Reward." So then we further the notion that we can decide who is fit to live and who is not, on the basis of many arbitrary things. So who should referee this, and what should we as a society think about it, and where, furthermore, and more importantly, do you go for the answer to this? Well, certain justices of the US Supreme Court would say, "If we can find evidence that in Belgium or Great Britain, the enlightened there think absolutely this is fine and dandy, then we have to take that into account." Other justices would say, "The heck with that. Let's go look at what the Founders of the Constitution wrote, the Founders of the country and the Declaration of Independence. Let's go look and see what they wrote. What did they think about this?"

Oh, really? They didn't have an opinion on assisted suicide? Maybe not specifically and directly but might they have had an opinion on the sanctity of life and might that opinion on the sanctity of life be fundamental to the structure of this particular country, and might it be fundamental to the ongoing greatness and survivability of this country? Might they have said something about it? Well, who knows, except those who have researched it. Who knows except those who have taken the time to look at it. What of those who haven't, whether they be judges or just average citizens? What of those who haven't looked at the Constitution?

"I don't care, Rush, what it says. It's my life. It's my grandmother's life. It's not your business. It's not the court's business. It's not Thomas Jefferson's business."

Is that true? Is that really true? It could be, but where do you go to find out? Since we have these disagreements and we're going to have a wide divergence of opinion on this, where do you go to find out? Is there a single answer to this? Some believe that the Constitution will contain it. Some believe the answer can be found there if you just have the guts and the courage to look. But you also, if you're going to go to the Constitution and do a key word search on assisted suicide you're wasting your time, you're not going to find it. You have to do a little bit more than that. You have to find out exactly what was in the minds of the founders, and this even could be worthless, if you don't care that much about the Constitution. If it doesn't matter to you, if it hasn't been taught to you in school, if its importance hasn't been drilled into your head. The likelihood is it hasn't, since September 17th every year is called Constitution Day in the public schools. It's the one day it has to be taught. I may not be that big a deal to you, and a lot of people say, "Whatever I do in my life is not going to affect the country." A lot of people look at things like that. "I can rob that bank; it's not going to affect the country."

Maybe you alone, whatever you do won't, but we're not alone. We're about 300 million people. My point is that these are really challenging questions, and it's really important you get the answer right, and is there a source authority for this? I happen to think there is, and that's why you need remarkable people who have an ability and have studied it and care about it and have an honesty about them to be able to read it and interpret it properly, because it's not that hard. A bunch of egghead elitists can make it hard. But it really isn't that hard. So it is a big issue and it's captivated the minds of the media, and I must admit here, folks, that watching the media today, there's a macabre interest in this. The left just seems to get more excited about anything when death is on the table. I don't know what it is, whether it's disaster death or war death or society deciding we're going to off some of our fellow citizens, they get ginned up about it, really get excited about the death aspect. But, but, you start talking about life and somehow they just don't have as much interest in that, as though it is enlightened to understand that it's some people's duty to die and get out of the way, and that not everybody has a right to life. It depends on what somebody else wants. So I am continually amazed at these people.

Rush handled this brilliantly today.

Excellent discussion.

The assisted suicide law in Oregon is an abomination. It undermines the whole medical profession. It violates what the founders called the "UNALIENABLE right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Unalienable means that you can't take it away or relinquish it even if you want to.

You can't stop people from killing themselves if they really want to do so. But you don't have to sit there while they pervert our medical and legal systems so they can commit suicide a little more comfortably and conveniently.

States don't have the right to violate the basic fundamentals of the constitution. What if it was the right to free speech? The right to go to church? The right to bear arms? The inalienable right to life is even more basic than these.

Rush handled this brilliantly today.

Rush is simply wrong.

Murder is not a Constitutional issue. He may want the Federales to protect "life" but his want is no different from someone else "wanting" the Court to protect pornography (or pick your favorite left-wing "right").

The bottom line is that if the Court decides this then we have one law for the entire United States. If Oregon and its voters decide instead we have one State getting it wrong, and if they get enough wrong people will avoid Oregon. (Note that it could be a Federal issue if Oregon doctors kill out-of-staters, but I don't think this is the issue here.)

ML/NJ

I live in Oregon and voted with the minority both times when Oregonians approved the so-called "Death With Dignity Act." I think it is awful, and I believe we are already sliding down a very slippery slope here as news from the Netherlands documents. Nonetheless, the issue is: who should decide these issues? As a federalist and a believer in self-government, I still think this issue needs to be resolved legislatively not by the judiciary.

Interestingly, Justice Scalia, a devout Catholic, said in a lecture here at Lewis and Clark Law School, "You don't see me complaining abou the Oregon law." He said that for the same reasons although he no doubt finds the Oregon law as disturbing as I do. I wouldn't be surprised to see Scalia uphold the Oregon referendum. I WAS surprised, however, that he didn't side with Thomas on the California medical marijuana case last term.

He may want the Federales to protect "life" but his want is no different from someone else "wanting" the Court to protect pornography (or pick your favorite left-wing "right").

Unless you think of "life" as somehow different from "pornography."

. I wouldn't be surprised to see Scalia uphold the Oregon referendum. I WAS surprised, however, that he didn't side with Thomas on the California medical marijuana case last term.

I love Scalia's brilliance, but he's not quite as consistent or gutsy as Thomas.

Unless you think of "life" as somehow different from "pornography."

No. Unless you want to recreate the Constitution in your own mind. Madison and the boys knew about murder. They didn't give the Federal Government jurisdiction over murder, and then they emphasized the point with the tenth amendment. If you (and Rush) think murder should come under Federal jurisdiction, then you ought to support and amendment to the Constitution to that end. Anything else is simply disingenuous.

ML/NJ

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons,... shall not be violated...”

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

“No person shall... be deprived of life, ... without due process of law;...”

Article the sixth [Amendment IV] “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,... shall not be violated...” Article the seventh [Amendment V] “No person shall... be deprived of life, ... without due process of law;...”

These are restrictions upon the government(s), not the people. We went 200 years without anyone considering murder a federal issue. As far as I am concerned that means that it is not a federal issue. And the fifth amendment you quoted also says people should not be deprived of their property. Your logic would make poker games a federal crime.

ML/NJ

"The bottom line is that if the Court decides this then we have one law for the entire United States."

Sure. Advance the culture of death for the sake of abstractions. The "state laboratory" approach isn't the plan of the Founding Fathers, but rather a plan of early 20th Century progressives looking to establish socialism incrementally. Libertarians will get us all killed (the thoughtless dope smoking types, anyway).

The inalienable right to life is even more basic than these.

Yes, and it includes the right to end your own life if you want to.

Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government given the power to decide state criminal law. It was only recently that there were *any* federal crimes for homicide. This is an area where the various states have all the constitutional power other than that which belongs to the individual.

I wonder if USSC will heed these words from 1824; or follow a more modern, up-to-date, living, breathing precedent for their stare decisis.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824

[State] "Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass."

"No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress; and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation."

Sure. Advance the culture of death for the sake of abstractions.

Constitutional issues being argued before the Court, and involving the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause, are merely abstractions?

The "state laboratory" approach isn't the plan of the Founding Fathers,

Didn't Founding Father James Madison say that the powers of the federal government were few and defined, whereas State government powers were many and broad? I could have sworn he wrote something along those lines. If he did, then I think it's fair to say Mr. Madison would disagree with you.

but rather a plan of early 20th Century progressives looking to establish socialism incrementally.

Horse hockey. The Progressive era gave us the income tax, and took selection of Senators away from State legislatures. The 16th and 17th Amendments, ratified in 1913, added to the power of the central government at the expense of the States. It made the New Deal and Great Society possible, IMO.

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.