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.
Another nail in the coffin of seatbelt mandates, seems to me, if someone who doesn't live in New Hampshire wants to appeal it up.
If you have the right to hire a doctor to help you commit suicide, the idea that you don't have the right to risk injury by not wearing a seatbelt is rather absurd.
The good thing is that they actually allowed the state to decide this issue, which could bode well for states that would like to legalize medical marijuana.
This decision seems to confirm Rush's statement yesterday that if Alito is confirmed, it will still be 5-4 on the liberal side.
I'm delighted that Roberts joined Scalia and Thomas in voting for life. If Alito is confirmed that will make 4 conservatives. So, the moral of the story is that we need at least one more conservative on the court before we can start moving back in the right direction.
If people want to commit suicide, there is no practicable way to stop them. But the law should not support suicide any more than it supports murder. In traditional Christian thinking, suicide is worse than murder.
I sympathize with those who support states rights. But there can be no right to kill, with the sole exceptions of justice through capital punishment and just warfare. The basic constitutional freedoms are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Life is the most fundamental right of all, and it is INALIENABLE.
Well, back to the drawing board. We MUST confirm Alito, but that still will not be enough to reverse the tide of death. So we must work to increase the number of conservative votes in the Senate, and we must hope that Bush gets another chance to appoint a conservative to SCOTUS.
Janice Rogers Brown.
Disgusting ruling but let me ask this: how does this decision impact abortion? Can it no be argued that the practice of abortion should be left to the states?
Because Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens are such states right advocates.
Exactly. We screamed about judicial activism and strictly interpreting the Constitution. Now when the court comes down on the side of states rights some want to flip-flop when the decision doesn't fit their personal beliefs. Like John Kerry, you can't have it both ways if you want to be taken seriously.
In other words they allow people to kill themselves with controlled substances. Does this mean that someone wanting to kill themselves can get around federal gun laws, if a gun and not an injection is the method of choice.
The real test of whether you're a constitutional conservative is holding to the principles even when you disagree.
For example, I think abortion should be legal (although restricted, but I don't want to take that tangent away from the point). But I also think Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional intrusion into the sovereignty of the states. I know this would result in abortion being illegal in many states, but I don't care, as that individual issue is subordinate to constitutional principles.
Sadly, some people would, and they need to be guarded against as much as the far left.
"Specter is a fool...."
No he's their enabler.
I imagine that is the legal basis for the ruling.
I wonder if the same rationale will be used in abortion cases.I was just telling a friend in Oregon who was happy about this decision "you know, this could be a kep precedent in overturning Roe".
I agree with the decision as far as the idea it should be a state function, though I think involving the medical profession in suicide is an extremely dangerous and corrupting concept.
-Eric
There is that little thing in the Constitution called "the right to life"
Yeah, like this one (below) on the same issue? The federal courts are into POWER, and liberal politics, not states rights.
Washington State
On January 25, 1994, Compassion in Dying initiated a legal challenge of Washington State's prohibition against assisted suicide, RCW 9A.36.060. On May 3, 1994, Federal Judge Barbara J. Rothstein rendered a decision declaring the law unconstitutional. On March 9, 1995, a 3-Judge Panel of the Ninth District Court of Appeals overturned the District Court (2-1). On March 6, 1996 the Ninth District Court (en banc) reinstated the District Court ruling.
Oh absolutely. So long as YOU choose to kill yourself, meaning the mythical "you", then get a damn gun and do the deed. Again, I must ask, they gonna put you in jail?
Come on this matter is something the government, federal or state, should NOT even be getting involved in.
What's happening here is the beginning of state-sanctioned "suicide-mills", a real money-maker. Could even boost tourism.
It has nothing to do with states' rights, come on. If a state passes a law that allows mad husbands to kill their argumentative wives it doesn't mean it's okay just cause a state passed the law.
If you people don't see what's happening here then maybe it's me. But WHY do doctors et al have to get involved in this? It's something I don't think should be legislated in any matter. With no legislation, one can still handily kill themselves without their corpse being thrown in the slammer.
By even having such a thing on the books ANYWHERE, the door is opened. Who knows where this will lead. Depressed people can demand assisted suicide. In a moment of despair I can ask that I be freed from my pain. And don't give me that stuff about two doctors, so-called strict restrictions. I'm sure anyone can find two doctors to sign the form. Soon enough the lawmakers will begin making exceptions.
If it's that bad, do it YOURSELF, don't go demanding the lawmakers make laws just for little ole you. No one can stop you if it's what is really wanted.
Spectre's wrorse than a fool. Calling him a fool is painting him with whitewash.
I'm curious why you put legal suicide in quotes? Are you implying that suicide is illegal? There isn't a state in the union that will put you in jail for attempting it, and obviously none that will for succeeding.
I know what you mean about the FDA. This decision, as reported in the article, seems to weaken the FDA. And supports a "states' rights" view. But I agree that if the issue were abortion these majority justices wouldn't see it that way at all.
I'll have to read the opinions. Does anyone have a link? many thanks, in advance.
I am deeply troubled by the idea of assisted suicide. I understand the arguments on both sides.
But that's a policy argument. As far as the Constitutional arguments go, all I want to see is some consistency in application, rather than a gut-reaction policy decision dressed up as Constitutional law.
I fear we are getting the latter, not the former, these days . . .
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.