Sorry Feds, States and their Citizens DO have rights!

[SOB]

I think this is a fitting close for Asscroft's legacy.  Twice approved by Oregon voters, and now protected from fed interference...until they find another way to try and impose their will on the people.

Story Link

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.

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."

"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.

Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

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.

[Donzo]

Hmmmm....wonder why abortion isn't handled this way?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Donzo
Hmmmm....wonder why abortion isn't handled this way?

An excellent question.

[Yeager]

Im with the dissenters on this one.

I do not believe medical practioners should dispense lethal doses of barbituates (a federally controlled substance) to produce death intentionally.  But I would not force a fight on this matter.  Let the state have its way.

[lazs2]

I am all for states rights but I would wish that they would rule on something a little more important to me than this non issue..

Typical tho... they avoid the tough issues.

lazs

[rabbidrabbit]

the right to die isn't a tough issue?

[Swager]

States Rights.

The South did have a good idea on a few things about that!

[rabbidrabbit]

Personally, I have no idea how the feds have grabbed so much power and control from the citizens and states.  That which is handled at the lowest level possible is handled best.  Why do the feds demand seatbelt laws?

[Shuckins]

Gotta disagree with Ashcroft about this one.  Denying this service to terminally ill patients of sound mind accomplishes nothing and merely prolongs their suffering.  

All other arguments to the contrary are mere political and moralistic posturing.

[Gunslinger]

The right to die is not a big issue with me.  Many people have had to make the choice of watching a suffering loved one die slowly and painfully in front of them with no choice but to suffer along with them.  I wouln't want to be in their shoes.  But states rights are a big issue with me, I wish abortion was a states right issue as well.

What I can't stand is the amount of abortion questions that came up during the latest SC judicial nomination.  Don't these people have anything more important to discuss?  I mean seriously, I'm pro-life myself but it really isn't a huge issue with me until abortions in this country become greatly abused by irresponsible people or it's being done late in the pregnancy for non-life threat situations.  

Good for oregon, you have the right do die AND not pump your own gas.

[SOB]

I don't see any problem with making abortion a state-by-state issue either, unless it's been ruled a constitutionally protected right...I don't know what the merits of roe vs. wade are.

I "get" to pump my own gas into my work van at the state motorpool.  This time of year it's wet and cold.  I like having the pump jockies do it instead.

[Yeager]

Abortion is protected because its no bodies business and the constitution protects privacy...or so they say.

[Hangtime]

the constitution protects privacy

oh, the iorny....

[Rolex]

Here are some quotes and a link that are the ultimate in hypocracy:

John Ashcroft, then Senator from Missouri in October, 1997, objecting to the Clinton administration 'Big Brother' approach to internet and communications surveillance.

"The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of national security. To accomplish this, President Clinton would like government agencies to have the keys for decoding all exported U.S. software and Internet communications.

This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cyber-surfers, but the administration threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.

There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights."

and


"The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications."

Full text is Here >>

[Pooh21]

Originally posted by SOB

I "get" to pump my own gas into my work van at the state motorpool.  This time of year it's wet and cold.  I like having the pump jockies do it instead.

I know I was complaining about this when I first got here, but on a cold wet day at 5am I want to sit in my comfy FedEx van, while some pumpmonkey fills my tank. Instead we use a Pacific Pride, with no pumpmonkeys.