[La Enchiladita]

Still waiting to read the dissent opinion.

There are people arguing here that your life is your own to end as you wish. Then why, in Oregon, did the people put the responsibility for euthanasia onto doctors? It seems all too cowardly to me; if you believe in suicide, then do it unassisted. Don't get doctors and governments involved.

I also question how committed to states' rights, the majority opinion justices are...

[al_again]

Would it be constitutional if the analysts were not Americans, and the analysis was provided to the US as foreign intelligence?

I find it ironic as well that the justices who typically fight for states rights are saying that the federal government has the authority to pass laws regarding suicide (for some strange reason, I cannot find suicide mentioned anywhere in the constitution but hey, why should the SC start paying attention to the tenth amendment). The majority, who has proven time and time again that they don't value states rights, suddenly uses states rights as the deciding factor.

[Gondring]

Don't get doctors and governments involved.

The laws get doctors involved, as the law blocks a citizen from obtaining the medications without a prescription. I would prefer if the doctors and government weren't involved, and that medications were available without prescription, unless there's a public-health danger (such as with antibiotics and overuse).

[GSlob]

"It seems all too cowardly to me"
Being a coward is not against the law. Besides, one of my shooting students [I happen to be an instructor] committed suicide by shooting himself under the chin with .44 magnum. I am ashamed to say that he was such a poor shot that, despite having splattered most of his head around, he died only in the hospital. Thus even in shooting himself he would have benefited from some professional advice on aiming.