There is nothing whimsical about this law. When human beings seek to take God's will and timing about death and place it in human hands, it is the work of man's limited thinking, and in error.
You haven't answered the question as to why you believe the three conservative Constitutionalists on the Court agree with me, and not you.
Do these men have an inferior understanding of the Constitution than you do? Or could it be that you let your own personal feelings about dying interfere with your understanding of the Constitution?
In the Terri Schiavo case, the preponderance of freepers who wanted to let her die, felt that way based on personal experience, rather than on law.
The Constitution was based on the Creator's law, and supports life.
"You haven't answered the question as to why you believe the three conservative Constitutionalists on the Court agree with me, and not you."
You should read Scalia's dissent as well the separate dissent written by Thomas. Their opinions do not address any moral question of whether suicide is wrong. What they talk about is the federal government's power to regulate drugs under their commerce powers. Their opinions are based on the premise that the feds have the right to regulate drugs under their commerce power because Courts have ruled that before, and likewise, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), is something Congress had the authority to pass. Then they go on to say that under their powers from the Commerce Clause and the CSA, the feds have the right to regulate in this particular instance too. If you'll read the dissent by Thomas, it is quite apparent that he is none too happy with having to rule the way he ruled in this case. He only does so because he feels like he has to to keep the law in line with the Raich medical marijuana case and other commerce clause cases, even though he disagrees with them. He thought it was entirely inconsistent for the Supreme Court to rule the way they did on Raich and then rule this way on this assisted suicide case. Had his position on Raich been the majority position, I bet he'd have ruled the other way on the present case. Read his dissent and that should be obvious to you too. I liked this line by Thomas especially, "While the scope of the CSA and the Attorney General's power thereunder are sweeping, and perhaps troubling, such expansive federal legislation and broad grants of authority to administrative agencies are merely the inevitable and inexorable consequence of this Court's Commerce Clause and separation-of-powers jurisprudence." Thomas would really like to say the federal government has no business sticking their nose into this.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-623