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.
You mean if they were somehow federally prohibited from owning a weapon? First, I disagree with that one too. But this is a case of doctors who have the legal ability to dispense medications doing it. The actions of doctors are governed by the state; and therefore it is a state matter. The feds tried unsuccessfully to use the drug laws to invade state sovereignty.
The Court has already ruled that assisted suicide is not a constitutionally-protected right. So no, the rationale wouldn't be the same because the question isn't the same.
Okay. I'm sure the good judges would do it much better. There must be a way to weasle something to that effect in there. Those words in the DOI certainly set the scene that this country is based on a Culture of LIFE.
Anything involving implementing death just shouldn't be in the legislature.
It's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Another nail in the coffin of seatbelt mandates, seems to me
Ping to post #201.
The day will come when democrats will regret they pushed for this.
Few conservatives would choose suicide. While those liberals in Eugene and Portland will likely thin their herd, thus thinning their non-reproducing voting block.
Look for Oregon to be a solid red state by 2012.
this is a matter for the statesAs it should be, as abortion should be and was until Roe v. Wade.
Are you guys pulling my chain? Can so many people on a website dedicated to the United States and its government not understand the difference between the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, and recognize which one is actually the basis of our entire government and which one is just a big "piss off" to the King?
You know, a better way to force all of us to drive safer and thus reduce injuries in motor vehicles would be a federal law mandating a spear being mounted in the steering wheel pointing at our chest.
I know I'd drive slow and careful then!
Really? Where? Let's see, "life" appears once in the context of treason, twice in the 5th Amendment (due process and double jeopardy), and once in the 14th (due process). None of those contexts apply to this issue.
I am troubled by assisted suicide, but that's a policy argument.
We have to stick to our principles on the Constitutional arguments.
Have you ever read about what goes on in the Netherlands since they started on the path of "compassionate death"?
Different case. Also notice it wasn't the federal government attempting to undermine the state law using federal law.
And what "conservative test" is that - Federal ownership of our bodies?
This is a good ruling; at most, it's a state issue. Actually, government can butt the hell out - a .357 overrules robed tyrants if a person wants to end their life.
Does anyone know how many people in Oregon have used this option? Are there a lot of doctors that participate? And am I correct that a coma patient isn't included in the law? Can his/her family decide for that person?
I don't think ANY doctor really "knows" how long a person will live. It's a guess, based on statistics, at best. I would think that if a person is of sound mind when this decision is made, then that person could use their sound mind to carry out their wishes without involving courts or doctors.
Well, than you are not Conservative IMO!
I keep looking, but I still can't find that in the Constitution.
Just as someone had told me, Thomas' dissent seems solely to point out the hypocrisy of the majority in relation to Raich.
Read it, it is quite funny how he's almost pointing out their stupidity.
LOL
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.