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.

[muawiyah]

Your question is irrelevant. The Oregon law prevents the prosecution of certain persons who "help", that is "kill".

Once you have established a privileged class of professional killers, it's only a matter of time until they branch out beyond the original targets into other ranks.

Please notice that after 12 years of opportunity, not another state has passed such murder enabling legislation as has been passed in Oregon.

[BunnySlippers]

And a protracted discussion about Terri Schiavo would achieve what exactly? We disagree. Most people would not want to live years in the state she was in.

I would have thought the autopsy would have settled this.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"I wonder if the same rationale will be used in abortion cases."

"You may have it pegged. This may be setting up a repeal of Roe."

---

The six Justices who have voted to uphold Roe (Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) voted to uphold the Oregon law, while the three anti-Roe Justices (Scalia, Thomas and Roberts) dissented. Care to amend and modify your remarks?

[muawiyah]

Hi BykrBayb. Is this BunnySlippers person trying to convince you that it's OK to murder people?

BTW, I tracked down a bunch of the killer-queens we have infesting FR to another website recently. Gad are those people vicious. It's not just a cabal ~ they have blogs, and seem to get together socially.

[PAR35]

At the time of the comment, the breakdown hadn't been posted. I'll reserve further comment until I've read the opinions.

[Clemenza]

Have any of you SoCons heard of the Tenth Amendment?

The Court made the right decision, even if it allows the state of Oregon to continue a repulsive practice.

[muawiyah]

Here's a thought along that line. There is a distinct possibility that a new Conservatie majority on the USSC will vote to fully federalize the abortion question ~ and subject the process to so much judicial regulation that no abortion can ever be performed in the natural time-limit for such things.

The Liberal cabal on the court may well realize that such an option is very real, and could be setting things up for the alternative, that is, a re-delegation of the authority to kill babies to the states. That way, New York and California could continue to do what they do best (kill babies).

[EternalVigilance]

And a protracted discussion about Terri Schiavo would achieve what exactly?

Perhaps it would enlighten some about why respect for innocent human life is not just a dry political or philosophical discussion, but that these decisions affect real people and their families.

We disagree.

Yep.

Most people would not want to live years in the state she was in.

People live with the blessings or the burdens they are given. Young, healthy individuals often say exactly what you've said above, and yet, when people find themselves incapacitated to varying degrees, they find that their own lives still have meaning and worth.

It's a shame that you find such people to be worthless, and feel that you have the right to decide which lives have meaning and which don't.

In the America I've always known, those decisions were God's, not man's...not the state's.

[BykrBayb]

It's only okay to murder people if you claim that's what the victims wanted. See, you get some swamp judge to declare that the victims requested whatever form of death you plan to impose on them. You don't need any evidence. There can even be very strong evidence against your claim. But if you can get a corrupt judge to go along with it, then it's not really murder. It's mercy.

[EternalVigilance]

The Court made the right decision, even if it allows the state of Oregon to continue a repulsive practice.

How about if the state of Oregon had outlawed political speech? Would your 'logic' stand?

[muawiyah]

Did you ask a question?

I was referring to the judicial process specifically, and when that process requires the death of an innocent person, it is wrong.

You want I should put "knowingly" in there?

[AuH2ORepublican]

"What the Supreme Court has just ruled is that the Federal government's authority is limited, just as our Christian Founding Fathers intended."

---

Actually, no. The case was *not* decided on the grounds that Congress is not authorized by the Commerce Clause to regulate drugs used for assisted suicide. The Court said that Congress had not intended for the federal law to authorize the Attorney General to decide what is a proper use for federally regulated drugs. That's why Justice Thomas, who has argued for stricter interpretation of the Commerce Clause, was in dissent here.

This leaves open the possibility that Congress could pass a law banning the use of federally controlled drugs in assisted suicides.

If you don't believe me, read the following paragraphs from the posted article:

"The administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to pursue Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court said in a rebuke to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The 6-3 ruling could encourage other states to consider copying Oregon's law, used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people in that state. The decision, one of the biggest expected from the court this year, also could set the stage for Congress to attempt to outlaw assisted suicide.

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority - himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer."

[Clemenza]

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the first amendment and, through incorporation through the 14th Amendment, is applied to the states as well. There is NOTHING in the constitution that either prohibits nor advocates the voluntary taking of one's life. It is an issue left to the states, much like abortion should be.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Have any of you SoCons heard of the Tenth Amendment?

The Court made the right decision, even if it allows the state of Oregon to continue a repulsive practice."

---

Clemenza, read my post #654. The Court did not rule based on the scope of the Commerce Clause or on federalism grounds. Congress could pass a more precise law banning the use of federally regulated drugs in assisted suicides.

[ExcursionGuy84]

We are going to hell and fast!

Hang in there, friend.

If You love & know JESUS as your Savior & Friend, HE will come back for You & me & All the Believers really soon....

...so You won't be with the fallen world that is going to Hell.

[Clemenza]

Thanks.

[Gelato]

Actually, in this case, the 10th Amendment restricts Oregon. The 10th Amendment says that no state has the power to do that which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

The 5th and 14th Amendments expressly forbid states from allowing the taking of innocent human life. By codifying the killing of innocent people, the state of Oregon is complicit in murder, and acting outside its powers and rights.

It's akin to legalizing and regulating the trafficking of slaves. No one today would argue our federalist system allows states to do that.

[bamahead]

>>Excellent ruling. This is a state issue. Let the states decide if they want physician-assisted suicide or legalized abortion. Those who don't like the law can fight for change via the state legislature. Get the feds out of these issues.<<

Excellent point, and if one doesn't like the stance their state takes on a particular issue, be it a moral or philisophical digression, there's always 49 others to choose from.