Oregon Ping
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
Posted on 10/05/2005 11:12:43 PM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - The question of assisted suicide reached the Supreme Court for the second time in eight years on Wednesday, although the profound issues of professional ethics and personal autonomy that have animated the national debate largely remained outside the courtroom.
Instead, lawyers for the federal government and for Oregon, the only state to have authorized physician-assisted suicide, argued over a single question: whether John Ashcroft acted within his authority as attorney general when he decided in 2001 that doctors would lose their federal prescription privileges if they followed the Oregon law's procedures and prescribed lethal doses of lawful medications for terminally ill patients who wanted to end their own lives.
This is a straightforward question of federal administrative law, the bread and butter of the Supreme Court's docket. A federal appeals court ruled last year that in enacting the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, Congress did not give the attorney general the unilateral authority to penalize doctors who follow state law in prescribing federally regulated medications. The case, now known as Gonzales v. Oregon, No. 04-623, is the Bush administration's appeal.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was an active participant in the questioning. He asked Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who was defending the Ashcroft action, for "the closest analogy you have, other than this case," in which the attorney general had "impinged on" a state regulation of medical practice.
(...)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
... but the NYT makes a bias-report.
This shouldn't come up at all except as enforcement of professional conduct. Physicians, as a matter of honor, cannot officially cause someone to die. But we have strayed from common sense.
------- Senator Ashcroft then helped sponsor a bill to prohibit assisted suicide, which did not pass.
The correct ruling in this case is that, even though federal Prohibition is unconstitutional, so long as we will pretend otherwise, then the Controlled Substances Act should be enforced purely toward the authorized purpose of limiting recreational drug use, and not otherwise abrogate the State's prerogative to regulate medical practices.
It sounds as if Roberts will not rule correctly, unlike Rehnquist who probably would have ruled to uphold States Rights, as he did in the medical marijuana case.
Actually this was ruled Unconstitutional and most of the rest of the Brady Bill has since sunseted.
---Actually this was ruled Unconstitutional and most of the rest of the Brady Bill has since sunseted.---
Yes, it was declared unconstitutional, but they reworded it and got it passed again:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9713.htm
I have been told by those who should know that one should not infer from Roberts' questions that he will vote to uphold Ashcroft--in fact, the opposite is more likely, since most judges ask those with whom they agree the toughest questions--the very same questions they expect the opposing judges to raise later during "negotiations" on the joint ruling. The purpose of such questions is to draw out into the record whatever counter-arguments can be elicited from the litigators.
IMO, NYT presented Roberts as an "opponent" of Ashcroft, differently from many other reported rundowns of the same case in front of the Supreme Court.
Interesting. You are correct that the NYT represents Roberts as unfavorable to the government position, which would be great IMHO! I didn't bother to read the NYT article you posted because I'd already read so many others on this today. Overall, they seem to cast Roberts as favoring the federal government authority though.
That is an excellent point, and you may very well be correct. I hope that you are. It's quite true that we won't be able to get a decent 'read' on Roberts until he issues a few key rulings.
That covers on schools grounds only.
Oregon Ping
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
I don't give a flying frig, a flaming horse's patoot what those morons in Oregon want. I know all about state's rights and all that, but we are talking about human life here, something that has already been cheapened through abortion (including partial-birth) and the killing of a completely innocent woman by the State of Florida. In cases such as this, we not only need the Feds to step in, we should demand it.
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.