namelesstavern.net

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/assis ... index.html

Not surprising how Roberts voted, but kinda surprising they upheld it. Glad they did though. Never understood the opposition to someone who is absolutely terminally ill with only a little while left to live taking their own life in a safe and humane manner. They're going to die anyway, and want to spare themselves months of agony, how is that a bad thing? Apparently Bush & Co. would rather see people suffering and in pain, which doesn't surprise me.

-Arlos

It's based upon the belief that suicides don't go to heaven rather than enjoying seeing people suffer.

I'm glad to see the Supreme Court came down on the side of States rights instead of even bigger government.

There was a story in Tulsa's independent newspaper a month or so back. Best article for the past couple months.

Oh, the article related to this.

Actually, Martrae, given Bush & Cheney's actions since they've been in power, I suspect enjoying watching people suffer is more likely to be the real reason.

-Arlos

I'm pretty sure it was a State vs. Federal right issue and not about "watching people suffer".

Stop interjecting actual law discussions into legal arguements! Stick with the President is evil and wants us to suffer and die horribly!

Scalia's dissent was interesting, and this is something we should address Federally, although not an easy piece of legislation to pass, I'd wager.

Wishing horrible death and suffering upon me is one thing, but please, for the love of
almighty Ahura Mazda, let me worry about my own eschatological fate.

I was shocked by Scalia's dissent. I was under the impression he was not a statist and would champion State over Fed on these issues.

Eziekial wrote:I was shocked by Scalia's dissent. I was under the impression he was not a statist and would champion State over Fed on these issues.

Scalia's dissent wasn't based on state versus federal rights. Heck, the challenge to Oregon's law was never Constitutional in nature. At no point was the court asked to determine whether the law was constitutional, just to decide whether or not Congress, when enacting the Controlled Substances Act, intended for it to affect the issue of assisted suicide drugs. There can be no question that the CSA is constitutional, as the power to regulate interstate commerce is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. The question is whether or not the scope of the law allows the federal government can use this power for the purpose of preventing doctor-assisted suicide.

The Constitution says that all "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively", not that the federal government can't use the enumerated powers for purposes not enumerated within the Constitution. Scalia's dissent is entirely in keeping with a strict constructionist interpretation.

I find it entirely inconsistent that the Supreme Court would declare the CSA to be so sweeping as to prevent the intrastate transport of medical marijuana, but not the drugs intended for use in an assisted suicide.

Ah! I see the distinction, now. Thank you sir for clearing that up.

I find it entirely inconsistent that the Supreme Court would declare the CSA to be so sweeping as to prevent the intrastate transport of medical marijuana, but not the drugs intended for use in an assisted suicide

i see your point, both have legitimate use for medicinal purposes....

i am glad that the decision came out the way it did... I am generally a supporter of stronger states rights