SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS OREGON'S SUICIDE LAW

ap ^

[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.

[EternalVigilance]

It was when execution was decided to be a fit means of punishment.

Capital pushishment, and human government's right to exercise it, has been a part of Judeo-Christian civilization, and specifically a part of American governance, all along.

Punish the guilty, protect innocent human life. The former establishes respect for the latter. It's not complicated.

[GSlob]

"This is not about sex."
Of course, not. "Fellatious" was used - on purpose - instead of standard spelling "fallacious" to denote the antillectual quality of name-calling used as an argument. Verstehen?

[EternalVigilance]

Since you admit you included a vulgarity on purpose, the honorable thing for you to do is to ask the moderator to pull the offending post, don't you think?

[Dr. Nobel Dynamite]

So the right to life IS alienable, as long as there is due process of law, correct?

In a case of assisted suicide, how is anyone being deprived of any right to life without due process of law?

[Mr. Brightside]

Life and death, which is what we are dealing with here, is a legitimate province of the federal government.

Not necessarily. Murder, for instance, is a state crime, unless committed on federal property (post office, national forest), or committed against a federal officer in the line of duty, or unless the perp crossed state lines.

[SittinYonder]

The decision was the federal government does have jurisdiction to regulate this but the court's decision was that it was morally and legally OK if two doctors say it is.

That's and important distinction. I was initially disappointed with Thomas, Scalia and Roberts because I saw this as a state's rights issue without paying attention to the actual case. The six in favor here still voted to strengthen the authority of the federal government, not to give this issue to the states to decide.

[GSlob]

Nope. It was not a vulgarity [everything was printable], but proper to the situation and moderately creative word usage.

[Gondring]

Sad to see so many here championing the alienation of the fundamental right to life that our Bill of Rights is supposed to protect; and would protect still if our legal and political leaders bothered to pay any attention to its basic meanings anymore.

AGREED! The Right to Life is as important as

• the Right to Keep and Bear Arms,
• the Right to Worship Freely,
• the Right to a Free Press,
• the Right of Assembly,
• the Right to Free Speech,
• etc.

It's sad to see so many so-called "conservatives" who would want the government to pass laws to insist that everyone

• be forced to carry weapons,
• be forced to attend church,
• be forced to publish,
• be forced to attend rallies,
• and not shut up!

Since obviously the Right to Life means one is FORCED to live, right? </sarc>

On the other hand, Americans who love the foundations of our Constitution know that every right includes the right to the opposite: the right to speak includes right to keep opinions to oneself, the right to carry arms includes the right to eschew arms, etc., and the right to life includes the right to die. So an attack on this ruling is an attack on the right to life!

[EternalVigilance]

First, the term 'assisted suicide' is a lie unto itself.

The doctors are murdering their patients, in contradiction of every principle that underlies civilization and the medical profession.

Due process refers to a fair trial being accorded a person who is accused of committing a capital offense.

This is really not that complicated. I'd think a 'Doctor' could understand...

[EternalVigilance]

Your claims about 'forcing someone to live' are specious, and foreign to America prior to this dumbed-down generation.

[Gondring]

The doctors are murdering their patients, in contradiction of every principle that underlies civilization and the medical profession.

Oh? They cannot administer the meds themselves, only prescribe them.

But how about we go back to the way it used to be, when a prescription was a doctor's professional recommendation, not something required for obtaining medicines.

[IranIsNext]

"We don't control our lives, God does."

So you are actually arguing with God, not us, if you dispute anything we post here? But since God is in control, it wouldn't really be that either. It would be more like... God arguing with himself?

Or perhaps we do have free will.

[IranIsNext]

"Breyer was the one dissent on the appeal of the death sentence for the California murderer. So he thinks it's okay to keep a murderer alive but he wants a sick patient murdered"

IMHO, killing someone against their will, and keeping someone (adult of good mental state) alive against their will are both examples of depriving someone of the right to life. THEIR life that is. Not somebody else's.

[EternalVigilance]

Oh? They cannot administer the meds themselves, only prescribe them.

Oh? Then what does the 'assisted' in 'assisted suicide' denote?

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[Ultra Sonic 007]

I believe that the reason behind Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas' dissent would be because of their desire to preserve the right to life. Which, FYI, is a God-given right, and trumps the Constitution any day of the week.

However, I agree that this is a states' rights issue. I doubt the dissenters' opinions were formed because they wanted the federal government to have more authority in this case.

[Gelato]

Amen to your post.

Those who tout states' rights on such an issue as this do not understand our federal system.

We live under a FEDERAL system, not a CONFEDERACY of states. States do not have the license nor power to nullify unalienable, God-given rights, nor can they ignore the U.S. Constitution.

The first principle of our system is that the government derives its powers from the PEOPLE. The power to deprive anyone of the unalienable right to life cannot belong to the states because it cannot belong to the people.

Secondly, it is expressly unconstitutional for a state to kill the innocent. The very portion of the Bill of Rights that secures states' rights (the 10th Amendment) prohibits the states from holding powers prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. We know the power to deprive a person the right to life is prohibited by the Constitution, via the 5th and 14th Amendments. Unless the person has been duly found guilty under the law of a crime that warrants capital punishment, the state has no power to kill him.

Further, Oregon's law cannot be defended on the claim that a right to suicide exists among the people. The unalienable right to life, by definition, is "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred."

Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law does not fall within the realm of states' rights. We might as well say states have the right to hold slaves.

[Dr. Nobel Dynamite]

You're right, it is very simple.

Since you didn't answer my question, I'll assume that you agree that no one is being deprived of any constitutional rights in the case of assisted suicide.

And since that's obviously the case, why isn't this a matter for a person to decide on their own, without the federal government interfering?

Perhaps you trust the government a little more than I do, but I want to remain in control of my own life up until the end WITHOUT being Congress's advice and consent.

[EternalVigilance]

This generation has largely forgotten that all of our lives belong to our Creator, not to ourselves.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that so many view it this way, unlike all previous generations in America.

Too many today think they themselves are god.

[Dr. Nobel Dynamite]

Please explain to me how the state is killing anyone in an instance of assisted suicide.