Posted on 01/17/2006 7:07:26 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
He wants to retain States rights and you're accusing him of being liberal? I must be in the Twilight Zone. I thought I was on FR.
it wouldn't if they got some judge who was a member of the KKK to sign off on it.
I'm quite surprised that Roberts was in the dissent.
Not me. He offered no opinion. I think he is showing his alignment with the right side of the court.
But I am surprised the Thomas and Scalia didn't hang more to the States rights side. Like I implied above, the whole court will have some monumental decisions coming up.
Roe V Wade will probably be not necessarily overturned, but amended in some flavor. And look for medical marijauna to become a state issue.
we are in agreement.
Having reviewed the opinions of the Court, as I said, the majority opinion is political and the 3 dissenters -- including Roberts -- are not opposing states rights or the Constitution. The case has to do with compliance with the federal CSA.
Perhaps the CSA should be found un-Constitutional.
The situation comes down to an unsavory combination of unethical physicians and irresponsible individuals. The dissenters are correct.
The decision would appealed and overturned.
That's quite a scenario. I don't know that I follow it as far down the path as you do, but we certainly saw what happened when they got twitchy about Miers.
Anthony M. Kennedy was also a Gerald R. Ford man in 1976. I wonder why Nancy let that appointment go through in 1988???
Thank you.
The Scriptures teach that God never gives us more to bear than we can handle. There is no place for euthanasia in Christianity. Read "the book."
They can still hang on to CSA. Interstate commerce clause...
I would expect them to tell Congress they have to define better the ideas of Legitimate medical use.
Imaging that ... God is going to prevail at the end of all things, He does, after all, works out everyting in conformity with the purpose of His will (Ephesians 1:11) and yet he gave man freedom to choose ... a man can say no to God.
He gives me life and gives me freedom .... then He does everything needed to pay for all the times I've screwed the pooch and told Him no so he can adopt me as a son ...
Isn't He awesome.
Roberts voted in the minority.
Okay. It looks like the Court opinion went against states' rights...?
His position is basically that you can't on the one hand say that the federal government can ban the intrastate possession of marijuana (as they already did in Raich), and on the other hand say that the federal government cannot ban the prescription of lethal drugs, under the same law.
He's right, as usual.
The majority's reasoning is absurd.
Sheesh. Get the gun, pull the trigger, and keep the government out of it.
It was a 6 to 3 vote. The three conservatives voted in he minority, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts. So much for the wimpy ones who thought Roberts was not a conservative.
The right to control one's OWN life, including deciding when to end it, is alive and well in America. The government doesn't own individual citizens' lives, and Hillary's "village" doesn't own individual citizens' lives. Individual citizens own their own lives, and can dispose of those lives as they please.
"It is my opinion that the most fundamental responsibility of government is to protect the lives of it's citizens (even from themselves if necessary)"
That good old government, telling me how to live my life. Thanks Uncle Sam!
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.