SC upholds Oregon law for physician-assisted suicide.

[rodeodance]

[rodeodance]

1. 6-3 decision. breaking on msnbc--will post link when i get it.

[rodeodance]

2. said state thumps Fed. ruling on this. whow.

[rodeodance]

3. no link yet. and no discussion other than brief announcement.

[TaleWgnDg]

57. With all due respect, IMO it's quite meaningless to post in DU . . .

.

With all due respect, IMO it's quite meaningless to post in DU . . . a LBN item only to be first in DU to post w/o knowing what it's all about. I take issue with this . . .

That being said, here's an excellent and comprehensive news overview containing quality url hyperlinks to primary and secondary source materials regarding this SCOTUS decision, Gonzales v. Oregon, __ U.S. __ (SCOTUS docket #04—623, decided Tuesday, January 17, 2006)

BREAKING NEWS ~ Supreme Court upholds Oregon assisted suicide law

Jeannie Shawl, Jurist News, Tuesday, January 17, 2006, at 10:21 AM ET

(JURIST NEWS) AP is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court (official website) has upheld Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (.pdf format, AdobeReader® required), rejecting federal efforts to prevent doctors from assisting patients in taking their own lives. In 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered (text) a halt to the distribution of controlled drugs used by doctors for the suicides, arguing it was a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act (text). The Court heard arguments (JURIST NEWS report) in Gonzales v. Oregon (Duke Law School case backgrounder) in October.

10:35 AM ET - In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the Controlled Substances Act does not allow the Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide when state law permits the procedure. Read the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion (text), per Justice Kennedy, along with a dissent from Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, and a separate dissent (text) from Justice Thomas. AP has more.

. . . more at . . . www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/01/breaking-news-supreme-court-upholds.php
.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-623.ZS.html (SCOTUS syllabus, last visited Tuesday, January 17, 2006)

__________________

edited to repair a broken hyperlink

[rodeodance]

4. I do know this issue has been going on for years and years.

[merwin]

5. Here's a short article:

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/13645354.htm

[jefferson_dem]

6. Brief AP snippet here ->

Supreme Court upholds Ore. suicide law

GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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. Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/13645354.htm

More from AP -

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the federal government does, indeed, have the authority to go after drug dealers and pass rules for health and safety.

But Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people -- those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.

[jefferson_dem]

8. The old states-rights / federalism rationale. It will be interesting to

see how the so-called conservatives came down on this one.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

34. It's a truly conservative decision

Not a neocon decision.

Conservatives - the real ones - are in favor of leaving states and individuals the hell alone.

This is a GREAT decision.

It'll piss off the bluenoses, to be sure.

Good.

[rodeodance]

15. thanks for posting the links

for me (and all).

[NashVegas]

27. Roberts, Thomas, Scalia All Dissented

Soon to be joined by Alito.

[wellst0nev0ter]

45. OH. . .MY. . .GAWD!!!!!!1111one

Roberts has voted to overturn a state law which has been deliberated, voted on and upheld for several years.

Please, don't tell me it makes him a. . .a. . .

*CHOKE*

*GASP*

*HRRK*

*HEAVE*

*SHOCKED*

(whispering) judicial activist

[0rganism]

52. goodness gracious, what a surprise

Why, I never would have imagined those three banding together against STATES' RIGHTS

[havocmom]

7. Be nice if they leaned the same way on medical marijuana too

Perhaps as they get older and more likely to really feel our pain, some of them might be getting a bit more open minded about end of life issues?

[havocmom]

10. Back in reality, having a cynical attack. Maybe they just wanna cut costs

for medical care for people who are no longer able to consume as many goods? Once one reaches the $$ limit on insurance, will it be easier to be put out of one's misery?

[zann725]

26. Could work 'both ways'...true. However someone terminally ill, or

suffering long-term chronic pain, have the right to end their own suffering...in a dignified, certain way...instead of say, jumping off a bridge, or driving one's car into a wall. Certainly it needs to be monitored, but still good it exists...and sounds like Oregon is state with some "free thought"...that and the Governor's rejection of the National Patriotic Act.

[havocmom]

42. As someone dealing with chronic, long term (and getting worse) pain

with no cure in sight, I agree. People need to have options and be allowed to make informed decisions. I have firmly supported the right of the individual to set the conditions for end of their own life.

What concerns me is the sudden about face from a federal standpoint. Perhaps it was helpful to get Ashcroft and his heavy handed insistence that everyone do it his way. But I have had enough experience with corporate health care to know they love taking care of ya when you have money and/or until your insurance benefits run out. No money? No insurance? Good luck, my friends.

We do need protections for end of life choice. We also need health insurance that is not tied to work or spouse. That system has left way too many people to get worse until there is no help when some earlier treatment could have kept them vital and productive. It has left too many to have to rely on self-medication to cope. It has left too many out.

As a higher percentage of our population ages and suffers the common problems of aging, the medical care system will shift more and more costs to less and less people. The government knows they have to do something of face mass dissent about lack of universal health care. They know their pals in insurance industry don't like that. So, suddenly, the SCOTUS looks to be more open minded about assisted suicide.

Yeah, I question their motives even while I hope they come down on the side of choice.

[anitar1]

69. Parts of Oregon are very Blue, I am happy to say.

Right now I am in shock over this decision. I thought they would go the other way. I want to know I have a choice, if it comes to that. Actually, there have not been thousands seeking to use this. Some were approved but , in the end, did not choose to go through with it.I am hoping that the flood of people moving here, are progressives.There are many here now who despise our land use laws ect. They want to develop our state. When I hear develop, it puts me in mind of California, and how it has been trashed to the max.I don't call that development.

[0rganism]

53. The problem with such cases...

...is that marijuana is considered within the realm of commerce, and having the SCOTUS thwak that down wreaks havoc with the federal gov't's obligation to regulate interstate commerce. If the court throws out the DEA's ability to "regulate" (i.e., persecute) medical marijuana, it also establishes a precedent for denying the fed's regulation of heroin, the FDA regulation of the meat packing industry, the FCC regulation of media ownership (lame as it may be), EPA regulation of factory emissions, and so on.

Much as I support medical marijuana in principle, I have to agree with the majority in the recent decision that the federal government is expected to have a degree of safety-oriented oversight in tradeable commodities. The proper way to address the legality of medical marijuana is through electing representatives willing to take another look at unreasonable statutory legislation, and reschedule marijuana. This is the hard way, as it involves shifting public opinion in the face of a massive propaganda campaign, but it is the right way.

[High Plains]

54. Oh, c'mon. The Raich decision was not about

"safety-oriented oversight in tradeable commodities." It was about the Supreme Court extending its bizarro world reading of the commerce clause. In Raich, a patient wanted to grow her own medical marijuana for her own use in her own backyard in accordance with California law. Can someone explain how that affects interstate commerce? This was the same court that struck down laws penalizing people for having guns near schools because it didn't affect interstate commerce.

I agree that one way to resolve this issue is for Congress to reschedule marijuana. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[0rganism]

55. It's not a matter of expressed intent

Just because someone grows something for themselves doesn't mean they won't share it with others, affecting local (black) markets at the very least. That's pretty basic. Even if you grow corn in your backyard for your own use, you still have a legal obligation to conform to federal regulations regarding such crops. Spray it with illegal pesticides, and you may very well have a case on your hands.

But if you really want to get into this, consider what happens to the marijuana crop if/when she dies. Who owns it then? Can it be redistributed by the executor of her estate? What if her sole beneficiary lives in a different state? If she leaves her property to this beneficiary, is said person responsible (read liable) for the allocation of any plants remaining on the grounds? These are points at which the commerce clause naturally kicks in, as well as various local and state regulations.

I would have to review the firearms cases you mentioned to see why specific laws regulating their posession were struck down. There is a sticky 2nd-ammendment issue to consider, of course, whereas marijuana (or any other food or medicine) has no such constitutional protection, so we could be talking apples and Uruguay here.

The SCOTUS has pretty much held in Raich that the ONLY way to resolve the issue (in favor of medical marijuana) is to reschedule marijuana in a manner that reasonably reflects its actual risk (very low). I agree that we shouldn't expect it to be quick or easy, but so far the pro-marijuana crowd has been downright lazy in countering the agitprop forced on the public by the CNDCP. If we want to relieve the nation of its burden of enforcement of ridiculous-yet-constitutional laws, we need to change the laws.

[Zynx]

9. I see Kennedy was with the majority.

Who else was in the majority?

[jefferson_dem]

11. Fucking Roberts joined Thomas and Scalia in dissenting.

I guess we know where he stands now, huh!

:mad:

[Zynx]

12. Then he's just a right-wing ideologue.

He decides not to believe in states' rights when it suits his agenda in this case.

[Caoimhe]

22. exactly

[DainBramaged]

21. Another fucking corn-cob ConJob, we know we're doomed

More reason now for Scalito to be filibustered. Damn it, the guy was a snow job and his sorry ass got confirmed. What's next, forcing the terminally ill to suffer without narcotic pain killers because they'll get addicted? Douche bags all three.

Minding the business of others without minding their own.

Fucking gang of 12 fuck them fuck 'em all.

[TaleWgnDg]

56. This is no surprise. None whatsoever. Again, Justices Thomas

.

This is no surprise. None whatsoever. Again, Justices Thomas and Scalia have demonstrated an inability to separate their own religious beliefs from law when it comes to legal issues that touch upon Roe v. Wade-like issues, i.e., the so-called "beginning of life" issues. Here, they again fail in an "end of life" issue. These two religious issues are somewhat related in a legal analysis too, i.e., the "beginning of life" and "ending of life" issues. So where is the surprise when Roberts joins them? None. And, where will the surprise be when Alito joins them too? Again, none.

As an added note, these four justices are devote, ultra-conservative Roman Catholics who, as I stated prior, cannot separate religious tenets from a constitutional analysis of relevant applicable law (except in death penalty analysis). P E R I O D.

BTW, for the very first time in the history of our country, there will be a Roman Catholic majority upon the SCOTUS bench. Four of whom will be ultra-conservative Roman Catholics who cannot or will not separate Church and State!! Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.



.

[killbotfactory]

75. Yep.

Seperation of Church and state? What's that?

[BlueIris]

72. From what I can tell, Kennedy has basically decided to

jump ship from the conservative block on the issue of privacy. Why do you think the Admin keeps grousing around about how Kennedy's "planning to retire"?

[jefferson_dem]

13. NYT article

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Assisted-Suicide.html?hp&ex=1137560400&en=0cc5bed85f2ef9ec&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[rodeodance]

17. says Adm (asscroft) tried to use drug laws improperly.

That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose."

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. That's what happens when you make an idealogue nutcase AG. nt

[swag]

14. WP Link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700435.html?referrer=email

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting, upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.

That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the federal government does, indeed, have the authority to go after drug dealers and pass rules for health and safety.

But Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people _ those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.

Tuesday's decision is a reprimand of sorts for Ashcroft. Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

. . . more

[DainBramaged]

16. Link on USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-17-scotus-suicide_x.htm

[rodeodance]

20. Scalia says feds have power to regualte medicine. (nope).

Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

"If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.

The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."

Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Scalia said the court's ruling "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."

[depakid]

62. Well, he's right to a certain extent

Congress probably can outlaw this procedure (and many others) in a variety of ways- and presumably delegate the proper authority to the attorney general to do it as well.

Just not in the backhanded way that Bush & Ashcroft tried to do it.

Of course, Scalia's hypocrisy know no bounds, so I'm not even going to attempt to square his "arguments" here with "arguments" in other cases with inconsistent results.

He's a worthless jurist, with no integrity- and that's what future law professors will teach about him (along with Rhenquist & Thomas too, btw).

[stevedeshazer]

18. Great news

Ashcroft smackdown.

[mike_c]

19. this was a good decision, but Roberts' position shows...

...that he is precisely the sort of ideologue that we feared. The three who voted in the minority form a core of conservative philosophers for whom the Constitution is secondary to supporting a RW agenda that, if unchecked, will destroy this Republic. That's not hyperbole. Those three justices are the taliban of the Supreme Court, and I fear Samuel Alito will soon join them.

[DainBramaged]

25. Fucking Gang of 12 it's their fault all of them

Those DINO's who were and still are a part of this cabal should be defeated. Their decision will cost this country it's freedoms.

Robert Byrd (West Virginia)
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)


Fucking DINO's.

This one statement says it all. And I quote one of our illustrious members;

"If Bush and Cheney fell off a cliff, what say the odds would be that (insert press whore/DINO name here) would turn up hanging from the edge with the bloody stump of Bush's dick in his mouth?"

Thanks to DU member kenny blankenship for this great line.

[depakid]

31. The party "leadership" needs to get serious

about disciplining its members- like the Republicans do. If it weren't so timid, you wouldn't be seeing so many defections almost ALL of the time.

I suggest that we start sedning money and other support to the DINO's opponents, whenever possible.

Dumping Lieberman and that asshole Nelson should be at the top of the list.

[Nothing Without Hope]

29. Exactly - this is extremely important and shows what a disaster

adding Alito would be.

[Orangepeel]

35. agree with one quibble -- "core of conservative philosophers"

They aren't conservative. The conservative position would be to limit the power of the federal government and leave Oregon the hell alone. They would more accurately be called fundamentalists (even though I believe all three are Catholic) or neocons (if "neo-conservative" can mean "anti-conservative").

[mike_c]

70. exactly so....

I think they're following both a religious agenda AND one designed to concentrate authority in the office of the executive.

[TaleWgnDg]

58. More correctly, who support a RELIGIOUS agenda . . .

please see my post # 56 in this DU thread.

[cal04]

23. High court upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law

The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting, upheld Oregon’s one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10891536/

[Nothing Without Hope]

24. Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law (WaPo, 6-3 decision)

Note how only the extremist, activist judges beloved by Bush - Roberts, Scalia and Thomas - dissented, saying that the Federal government (which these days means the President) has all the power. Needless to say, Alito would have joined them - but in this decision that still wouldn't have been enough to legitimize Ashcroft's power play for the Administration at the expense of the dying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700435.html

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 17, 2006; 10:23 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting, upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors.

(snip)

Tuesday's decision is a reprimand of sorts for Ashcroft. Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

"The authority desired by the government is inconsistent with the design of the statute in other fundamental respects. The attorney general does not have the sole delegated authority under the (law)," Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

(snip)

[mom cat]

30. This is a real victory! We must stop Alito so we can keep having

humane decisions.

[Arugula Latte]

32. Wow. I'm surprised.

:thumbsup:

[Ian David]

33. Because then they could have challened "W's Law," too on FORCED Euthanasia

Culture of Life: Pull the plug on conscious patients - W's law.
by YucatanMan
Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 01:19:30 PM PDT

No one here can forget the spectacle made over the death of Terri Schiavo, whose brain had died long, long ago. But in Texas, the law George W. Bush signed as governor allows doctors to inform the family that further treatment is hopeless (and costly) and Pull the Plug. Literally.

In the latest case to escape the Culture of Life warriors, Tirhas Habtegiris, a young woman and legal immigrant from Africa, was CONSCIOUS and responsive when removed from a respirator and allowed to die.

Let me rephrase that: She was killed by doctors who removed the ventilator keeping her alive. And this action was fully legal under Bush's "economic considerations" law. Her body was ravaged by cancer, but she was alert. She was responsive.

More:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/14/151930/63

Whenever Rethugnicans bring up Terri Schiavo, "Culture of Life" or the assisted suicide law, throw this in their faces: George W. Bush signed a law executing those who can not pay for life support.

[deminks]

36. Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_assisted_suicide

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that federal authority to regulate doctors does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time.

The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses, the court majority said.

Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter after O'Connor's departure. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins the liberal wing of the court in cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment.

[davidinalameda]

37. that's so great to hear

[WillParkinson]

38. Wow....I never!

Honestly, I never thought I'd see this from the current Supreme Court, even with the layout as it is. It's good to know that people can have a say in their lives and, now, in their deaths.

[still_one]

39. and look who they are trying to replace o'connor with

FILIBUSTER ALITO, IT IS CRUCIAL

Write you Senators

[lupita]

40. Well, Roberts just showed his colors

We need to stop Alito from getting there.

[coldiggs]

41. no kidding

[Jim__]

43. Roberts votes with Scalia and Thomas.

Filibuster Alito!

[mvd]

66. This is not good

It was a big test for Roberts, to see if he's the activist he said he isn't. My only hope is that Kennedy seeks to balance things out more with O'Connor gone.

[Ian David]

44. Culture Of Life: George W. Bush's "Futile Care" law

On March 15, 2005, six year old infant Sun Hudson was the first person to be forced to die under The Futile Care Law signed by then Texas Governor George W. Bush. <1>

In December 2005, Tirhas Habtegiris, a young woman and legal immigrant from Africa, was concious and responsive when removed from a respirator and forced to die, against her wishes and against the wishes of her family. Hospital staff refused to wait until her mother could arrive to say goodbye.

Under "W's Law," Texas hospitals and physicians have the right to withdraw life support on a patient who they declare terminally ill, if that patient can not afford to pay within 10 days.<2>

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futile_care_law#External_Sources

PS: This Wikipedia article needs some help.

[napi21]

46. High court upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law.

6-3 majority says state powers trump federal rules; Roberts' first dissent

• Assisted suicide upheld
Jan. 17: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the law, saying that state powers trump federal authority. NBC justice correspondent Pete Williams reports.
MSNBC


Supreme Court Fact Finder

Explore related facts (launches window):
• Profiles: Nine justices who have the say
• The ideological evolution of 6 justices
• 10 landmark decisions
• Supreme Court superlatives
• Supreme Court nominations by president
• Profiles: The Senate Judiciary Committee
• Justice O'Connor's swing vote clout
• How your senator voted on John Roberts


Updated: 12:10 p.m. ET Jan. 17, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting with the majority for the first time.

That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a “legitimate medical purpose.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10891536/

[WestHoustonDem]

47. Roberts, Scalia and Thomas dissented

Why am I not surprised?

[napi21]

48. Yea, I know. I thought the same thing.

I guess this is one of the last decisions to be made by O'Connor, huh? Well, it still would have been a 5/4 decision!

[sui generis]

49. just barely

and if it had been an Alito court they would have also added a rider to round up everyone who participated or campaigned in support of the law.

You must die miserably, and in pain, or doped and drooling the fuck out of your mind!

That'll teach you to get old or sick.

Why on earth does the state believe it has a right to interfere with your personal life decisions about your body? The state doesn't pay for your life if you're terminal, why should it get involved in keeping you alive if you don't want it, if you're terminal?

Roberts I'm sorry to say is just getting warmed up.

[napi21]

50. Do you suppose this is the NEW resolution for the 06 ballot?

On CNN when they made this announcement, the reporter asked the Attorney from Oregon what States he thought would jump on this right away and pass their own laws. He said immediately was a very difficult thing to say, but he thought Hi, and one other one (I forget which one) would probably be first.

I'm wondering if THIS will be the '06 resolution the RW puts on all the ballots to drag their believers out to the polls?

[Sandpiper]

51. Roberts toes the party line

What a surprise.

[DuaneBidoux]

59. You just never know what this "Conservative" court will do.

[goforit]

67. True!!.....I wonder what they would do under intimidating pressure?

This Bush tyrranny policies just may boomerang.

[insanity]

60. Hells yes

That is like the fourth victory for my state. Hopefully the administration will give up finally. BTW John Roberts is a fucktard.

[Democat]

61. Roberts is a right wing activist - can he be impeached?

He lied to the Senate and to the American people. He is just another activist right wing politician, not a judge.

[Nothing Without Hope]

63. SCOTUS candidate Roberts LIED about assisted suicide law in August:

Back in August, SCOTUS candidate Roberts LIED about his view of assisted suicide legality:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x165178
thread title (1-17-06 GD): Chief Justice Roberts lied to Sen. Wyden about Oregon's suicide law

[Megahurtz]

64. I wonder if they will let

Kevorkian out now?

[Generator]

65. As someone from Oregon

who voted on this TWICE, it passed TWICE by the PEOPLE of OREGON. And someone that actually believes in seperation of the state and the fed..and someone that believes in the right to make personal PRIVATE life and death decisions, let me be the first to say:

FUCK YOU JOHN ASHCROFT.

[BlueIris]

73. I'll second that 'fuck you.' Ashcroft is one of the worst things

to happen to the concept of legality in this country...ever. While I still content that John Mitchell was the worst A.G. overall, Ashcroft BITES. What sickened me most was that his support for his insane positions was ideological. Think about that, those who haven't. It's horrifying.

[cboy4]

68. Altito is now extremely dangerous. He needs to be stopped,

in wake of the way Roberts voted on this.

Now, now Mrs. Alito....no need to start crying hunn.

But yes, your husband has his own activist judge agenda, and he needs to be stopped.

[ismnotwasm]

71. It's good to hear this

I was listening to a spokesperson from Oregon talk about this this morning coming home from work. She was saying about 200 people a year take advantage of this law. She didn't expect the number to increase, or decrease. I remember a lecture one time on this topic, one of the things that the dying people appreciate is the control. Not all who are perscribed the lethal dose of medication use of it. Just having the option give a sense of peace in some people, who are faced with a very difficult death.

[Pastiche423]

76. That 200 number

is the number of reported assisted suicide deaths since 1998, not per year. (Actual number is 208.)

I am very happy about the decision. I am also happy that I live in Oregon.

[barb162]

74. This is a good decision; I am very surprised the court decided

this way

[Demeter]

77. Justices Uphold Oregon Assisted-Suicide Law--WaPost

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700435.html?referrer=email

Justices Uphold Oregon Assisted-Suicide Law
In a Blow to Administration, Ruling Paves Way for Other States to Follow Suit

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; Page A01

The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's law on physician-assisted suicide yesterday, ruling that the Justice Department may not punish doctors who help terminally ill patients end their lives.

By a vote of 6 to 3, the court ruled that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft exceeded his legal authority in 2001 when he threatened to prohibit doctors from prescribing federally controlled drugs if they authorized lethal doses of the medications under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.

The ruling struck down one of the administration's signature policies regarding what President Bush calls the "culture of life" and lifts the last legal cloud over the state's law, which is unique in the nation. It also frees other states to follow in Oregon's footsteps, unless Congress acts to the contrary.

It is unclear how many states would join Oregon; assisted-suicide initiatives have not fared well in recent years. Still, coming a year after efforts by Republicans in Congress to block the removal of a feeding tube from Terri Schiavo, and after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. faced questions from the Senate about their views on end-of-life issues, the court's decision could energize the political debate. Roberts dissented from the ruling, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.



Extensive Article With Background and Future Impact--Well worth the read!

[adriennui]

78. bush and the culture of life

this is a joke, no?

thank goodness for the oregon law, we need more humanity in end of life issues.

even palliative medications are being weakened because of the fear os "addiction" or "overdose".

[oneoftheboys]

79. Good decision.

An important thing to note--even if Alito were on the court, it would not have changed the outcome of this decision.