Funny how, Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

I thought they were the representatives of the "conservatives". The ones who want smaller government. Less intrusion into the lives of the American people.

At what point will the US wake up and realize that these so called "conservatives" in both appointed and elected positions have only corporate interests and special interests in mind.

I'm not denying that this goes for both sides of the aisle, but I'm getting a bit tired of getting butt f***** by those who say that they want government off of our backs.

Tough case and I'm not sure I agree with the Supreme court on this one.

Set aside the religious implications of such a decision.

Look at the ethical and financal aspects of it. I think this is more of a slippery slope than gay marriage rights.

Fandros

Here's part of Scalia's dissent.

The Court’s decision today is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the Federal Government’s business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. The prohibition or deterrence of assisted suicide is certainly not among the enumerated powers conferred on the United States by the Constitution, and it is within the realm of public morality (bonos mores) traditionally addressed by the so-called police power of the States. But then, neither is prohibiting the recreational use of drugs or discouraging drug addiction among the enumerated powers. From an early time in our national history, the Federal Government has used its enumerated powers, such as its power to regulate interstate commerce, for the purpose of protecting public morality, for example, by banning the interstate shipment of lottery tickets, or the interstate transport of women for immoral purposes. Unless we are to repudiate a long and well-established principle of our jurisprudence, using the federal commerce power to prevent assisted suicide is unquestionably permissible. The question before us is not whether Congress can do this, or even whether Congress should do this; but simply whether Congress has done this in the CSA. I think there is no doubt that it has. If the term legitimate medical purpose has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death.

It seems some people want super duper precedents to hold no matter what, but only if they agree with them. Imagine that.

It seems some people want super duper precedents to hold no matter what, but only if they agree with them. Imagine that.


Yeah typical of Scalia.

Rover, you completely misunderstand the posture of the case and the question before the court. Try reading the opinions before spewing idiotic statements. Akipt has obviously done that and made a good point (which went completely over your head).

Rover, you completely misunderstand the posture of the case and the question before the court. Try reading the opinions before spewing idiotic statements. Akipt has obviously done that and made a good point (which went completely over your head).


The Court’s decision today is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the Federal Government’s business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. The prohibition or deterrence of assisted suicide is certainly not among the enumerated powers conferred on the United States by the Constitution, and it is within the realm of public morality (bonos mores) traditionally addressed by the so-called police power of the States. But then, neither is prohibiting the recreational use of drugs or discouraging drug addiction among the enumerated powers. From an early time in our national history, the Federal Government has used its enumerated powers, such as its power to regulate interstate commerce, for the purpose of protecting public morality, for example, by banning the interstate shipment of lottery tickets, or the interstate transport of women for immoral purposes. Unless we are to repudiate a long and well-established principle of our jurisprudence, using the federal commerce power to prevent assisted suicide is unquestionably permissible. The question before us is not whether Congress can do this, or even whether Congress should do this; but simply whether Congress has done this in the CSA. I think there is no doubt that it has. If the term legitimate medical purpose has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death.

As I was saying (bolded above so as not to go over your head) These so called "conservatives" find it so easy to pass judgement on such things as morality to the masses yet they try to say that doing things like placing limits on the pollution of our atmosphere is "intrusive government". I guess I did read it.

The one point in Scalia's text that Akipt shared that really stood out (before Rover played with his bold text) was the line regarding legitimate medical purpose; this line alone could have set the foundation to overturn the Oregon law, if the court had wished to do so.

While I am on the side of those who are terminally ill and do not wish to continue life when there is no quality or there is constant pain, I also see the argument that if the Federal government determines laws regarding prescription drugs, than allowing those drugs to be used for assisted suicide is implicit sanctioning of suicide, which is contradictory to a majority of the pro-life, conservative bloc.

I have no problems with the conservatives dissenting, as suicide is in the same arena as abortion in terms of life being sacred. To do otherwise would be to declare themselves hypocrites. And, I would rather have justices I can disagree with then wishy-washy ones who are unpredictable, and demonstrate no concrete principles and philosophy.

Sorry if this ramble makes little sense.......had to eat some painkillers after the double workload today, and it's effect on my back.:(

As an edit, after looking at my post, I want to include that the Scalia dissent Akipt linked discussed law, and therefore is acceptable; if it had had any religious connotations, I would have objected and probably even called him a nasty name, heh. Each of the individual justices will always look at cases through their own filters of experience, beliefs, religious upbringing, attitudes, etc.; it is how they interpret the laws to support those beliefs that can become an issue, if done inappropriately.

Unitary Executive FTW!

The foundation of the lawsuit was conservative groups asking the courts to overturn a referendum supported twice by popular vote. It seems some people only hate judicial activism when it doesn't agree with them. Imagine that.

"The foundation of the lawsuit was conservative groups asking the courts to overturn a referendum supported twice by popular vote."

No it was not. You fail reading comprehension.

Maybe these questions will help:

Who brought the underlying lawsuit? (Hint it wasn't "conservative groups")

Why is Gonzales a named party?

Why is Chevron U.S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc mentioned?

"I guess I did read it."

You have stated nothing that would indicate you did. Try this simple exercise: State what question was before the court. You can cut and paste if you must, but I would prefer you put it in your own words.

As for Scalia's dissent, I think he acutely points out the hypocrisy of the majority. How in the world could the court reach its decision in Gonzales v. Raich and reach the result in this decision? At least Scalia is consistent. Either the federal government has the power to regulate controlled substances or it doesn't. Raich says yes and this case says no.

As Scalia says, to legitimately reach the result you do in this case, you have to "repudiate a long and well-established principle of our jurisprudence...." That includes the Raich case. Personally, I wouldn't mind overturning that line of jurisprudence and getting rid of the CSA altogether. Have all drug laws (including medical marijuana and assisted suicide) on a state level. Scalia has obviously determined that line of jurisprudence is "settled precedent." The majority, however, follows jurisprudence only when it allows them to reach their predetermined result.

So, if they place this level of decision in the hands of the state how long before we see this used as a case to back up legal pot use?

Fandros

No it was not. You fail reading comprehension.
Conservative groups form the foundation of support for overturning Oregon's assisted suicide law. Several of them can be seen on the docket (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-623.htm) as filers of amicus curiae. And nationally, the same types who support events such as "Justice Sunday" and whinge about the judiciary warring against "people of faith" support the overturning of this law and want (http://www.lifenews.com/bio1282.html) Congress to pass federal legislation to outlaw assisted suicide.
As for Scalia's dissent, I think he acutely points out the hypocrisy of the majority. How in the world could the court reach its decision in Gonzales v. Raich and reach the result in this decision?
The court distinguished its decision from Raich because the sale of marijuana is extensively regulated by federal law, whereas assisted suicide is not. From what I understand (flawed reading comprehension and all :rolleyes: ), Oregon chose to argue on statutory interpretation grounds rather than against the CSA and constitutional grounds -- all this because of Raich.
The majority, however, follows jurisprudence only when it allows them to reach their predetermined result.
I'm sure the minority didn't predetermine anything, especially Scalia.

So, if they place this level of decision in the hands of the state how long before we see this used as a case to back up legal pot use?

Fandros

Soon I hope! j/k

"amicus curiae" do not make the "foundation of the lawsuit" as you earlier stated. It means, literally, friend of the court, and they are simply particular groups interested in an outcome and wish to file arguments for the court to consider. They don't bring the lawsuit or defend it.

I did not read Oregon's brief so I do not know what they chose to argue.

From Scalia's opinion it is clear the result was not predetermined so I agree with you there. I don't know enough about Roberts to opine as to the remaining minority as you do.