Posted on 01/17/2006 7:07:26 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
BREAKING ON THE AP WIRE:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.
It is a continuation of the conflicting nature of our societal "norms".
BTW, a doctor can still be a doctor if he prescribes any drug that seeks to help in any way. But when he kills, he is no longer a doctor.
Doctors attempt to heal, killin' ain't healin'.
So Terri Schiavo wouldn't have qualified. Ooops - I forgot. That wasn't assisted suicide. That was assisted judicial homicide.
"I agree with your message, as well as this ruling. It particularly disturbs me that "our guys" were not in the majority."
I would love to see (read) the actual issues presented. It seems it may have dealt, not with states issues, rather to scope of doctors requirements under federal laws.
If that is the case, I can understand the vote.
I look forward to reading the dissenting view.
BTW, this is the thing that bugs me when it comes to lay persons understanding of the Supremes.
A case is brought to them, and if accepted (only about 1 of 10 or more is) they ask the parties to provide briefs to show their side. Then oral arguments aare held. The judges then weigh the arguments to the issues and rule. Often a judge will point out in a dissent, what track a future petitioner might follow in order the get to the desired end.
Anyway, I think they reached the correct CONSTITUTIONAL end even if they used a different issue to do so.
Ah, the trump card! The Golden Argument. I bow to your rhetorical brilliance.
And now it sounds like you're saying that the Right is putting justices in to decide the "right" way, not according to the law. That sounds like the sort of thing Democrats would be accused of, to me. ;) There have been a lot of surprises in the past; no reason to think the future will be any different.
Agreed. But it was the state of Oregon that declared this, and I can't see any legitimate Constitutional grounds for the federal government to undo this.
Ignorance is bliss
Its amazing how minimalizing federal government intrusion into our lives is no longer conservative, its libertarian.
And you said that like it was a bad thing.
It is clear you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to Christianity... Best go back to DU for troll refresher training...
People who wearing seatbelts have been critically injured too, such as being trapped in a burning vehicle and suffering third degree burns over large sections of the body. On the basis of insurance costs, perhaps seatbelt use should be discouraged, since one is more likely to be killed than seriously injured in a significant accident, saving money in the long run.
New Hampshire is the last state without an adult seatbelt mandate, and yet has among the lowest highway fatality and injury rates in the country.
DUH! It may not be punishable here on eart, but after we die it sure the heck is!
I might be. "Follow the money" is usually true whenever it comes to legislation that impacts any industry, but maybe not here.
I didn't see the wink. The question was what would the "right's" reaction have been? Depends entirely on whether they are social conservatives or not, as we have seen on this board. The religious right would have been pissed, but they're kind of used to that.
Where do you get this? The licensing agencies, both State and Federal, tell doctors what to do everyday of the week. Might not be in the constitution but it is standard operating procedure in our current "health care system".
Gods law is clear, Thou shalt not Kill. That does not come with a caveat, for suicide.
I agree, but as I noted above, I can't find any legitimate, Constitutional way for the federal government to step in.
Likewise, if the U.N. tried to interfere with a federal decision, I would not see it as legitimate.
It seems a true constructionist would be in dissent. Further, I hope this reflects his true opinion on Roe v. Wade.
I just scanned the opinions and must say I agree with the dissenters. The majority opinion has nothing to do with states' rights that I can see, but is an interpretation of compliance with CSA, and upholding of 9th Circus Court.
The majority decision is political, not Constitutional.
Different Lord. There's several to choose from; wait for the Presidents Day sales to get the best deal.
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.