"I agree with your message, as well as this ruling. It particularly disturbs me that "our guys" were not in the majority."
I would love to see (read) the actual issues presented. It seems it may have dealt, not with states issues, rather to scope of doctors requirements under federal laws.
If that is the case, I can understand the vote.
I look forward to reading the dissenting view.
BTW, this is the thing that bugs me when it comes to lay persons understanding of the Supremes.
A case is brought to them, and if accepted (only about 1 of 10 or more is) they ask the parties to provide briefs to show their side. Then oral arguments aare held. The judges then weigh the arguments to the issues and rule. Often a judge will point out in a dissent, what track a future petitioner might follow in order the get to the desired end.
Anyway, I think they reached the correct CONSTITUTIONAL end even if they used a different issue to do so.
"JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
The Court concludes that the Attorney General lacked authority to declare assisted suicide illicit under the Con- trolled Substances Act (CSA), because the CSA is con- cerned only with “illicit drug dealing and trafficking,” ante, at 23 (emphasis added). This question-begging conclusion is obscured by a flurry of arguments that dis- tort the statute and disregard settled principles of our interpretive jurisprudence. Contrary to the Court’s analysis, this case involves not one but three independently sufficient grounds for revers- ing the Ninth Circuit’s judgment... "