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.
I feel sure that the ACLU is in a frenetic state to try to find 49 other similar cases to raffirm what has been ruled upon. Judicial tyrrany reins supreme today in the USA. Kennedy and Stevens, and Ginsberg need to leave. What pathology the country has fallen to.
Agreed, and that illustrates that even with Alito on board, the good guys are still in a 5-4 minority.
Whether we like it or not, barring a constitutional amendment specifically adressing the issue, the states have the right to their own abortion laws, as well as their own assisted suicide laws.
"There is NO Constitutional amendment that protects against murder."
If you want to play god and take your life, you will likely succeed if you are competent.
But, you will have practiced self-murder, and will have to answer to the Creator for that.
Civilized men have always known that laws won't prevent one from taking one's own life if one is determined to do so. Just as it is very difficult to stop a determined murderer of others in a free society.
But we pass laws to try and put a check on such chaos and destruction, because to not do so would be to open our society up to unthinkable horrors.
You're trying to frame this as government having some power over you, the individual, when in fact, the reality you should be looking at is the sworn duty of our elected representatives to protect innocent human life.
(BTW, you're forgetting the other victims of suicide...the friends and families who are forced to bear the burdens of the selfishness of the self-murderer for a lifetime.)
So, you DO think that a State can legalize murder. Right?
This is less Judicial Tyranny then Judicial Dereliction of Duty. That is if you take the position that the OR law should have been thrown out
He's saying (as far as I can tell): "Look...not seven months ago, the court decided that the commerce clause can be stretched so far as to allow the regulation of the intrastate possession of marijuana."
"Fine...that's settled law...but you cannot now turn around and say that states' rights somehow compels the court to decide for a particular interpretation (one limiting executive authority) of part of the same law."
You are saying the 5th Amendment restricts only those it explicitly names. The problem with that is, no entity is named in the 5th Amendment.
The best you could do is argue that the entity restricted by the Bill of Rights is in Amendment I: Congress. Yet we know you don't believe that, since your post alluded to THE STATE as restricted by the 5th.
You therefore are drawing a conclusion based on a commonsense implication, that the 5th is a statement of principle.
That statement is, literally, that no innocent person shall be deprived of life in the United States of America. That means no entity has the power to murder.
Shouldn't be a problem returning them to Him, then.
That will be to hell with you, unless you stop the blasphemy. I can tell you from my experience there are miracles for those who see them, there are none for those who do not.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thats the will of God.
Ops4 God Bless America!
You obviously have never read the Oregon law, nor the many articles that have come out today. It does not legalize euthanasia--it's suicide that's legalized, and the assistance by a physician. The physician will be prosecuted if he administers the medications.
Bump for later.
Can't wait for Sam Alito to be on the Court when life issues come up again.
I'll read Scalia's dissent, that was much more involved and Thomas and Roberts had their names on it as well. Methinks what Thomas wrote was meant as a Stooges eye-poke to his colleages.
The fact that you are unable or unwilling to answer my direct question speaks volumes about your position.
Where has euthanasia been ruled legal?!?
Even if Alito on the court we'd still have lost this case. Says a lot about how "conservative" this court really is.
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.