Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SOB on January 17, 2006, 09:42:38 AM
-
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 (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.
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.
-
Hmmmm....wonder why abortion isn't handled this way?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Hmmmm....wonder why abortion isn't handled this way?
An excellent question.
-
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.
-
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
-
the right to die isn't a tough issue?
-
States Rights.
The South did have a good idea on a few things about that!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Abortion is protected because its no bodies business and the constitution protects privacy...or so they say.
-
the constitution protects privacy
oh, the iorny....
;)
-
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 >> (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm)
-
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. :(
-
"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."
LOL, what a piece of garbage.
-
He probably wouldn't have lost that election to a dead guy the death was a mercy suicide, but #1 at the DoJ is a much bigger gig than senator anyway
-
The truth of it is that Ashcroft probably lost that election because he refused to campaign against Carnahan's widow right after the crash. This was just a few weeks before the election.
The two were tied in the poll when Carnahan was killed Oct. 16 in plane crash. At first, Ashcroft suspended his public campaign activities, then crept cautiously back into campaign mode.
Ashcroft lost to Carnahan by about 49,000 votes out of more than 2.3 million cast. Carnahan's widow, Jean, was named to take the Senate seat.
49K votes out of 2 million cast; a close race.
Most of the "after action" reports highlight Ashcroft's 8 day inaction for his loss of momentum in the race and also a large sympathy vote for Carnahan's widow. It'd be interesting to have seen the result if Carnahan's Lt. Governor...then instantly Governor... had not named Mrs. Carnahan as the next Senator prior to the election. Suppose it had been some other Democratic pol, thus erasing the sympathy vote.
Media polls taken after Carnahan's burial showed the Senate race still statistically tied, as it had been for months. But the polls showed Mrs. Carnahan leading Ashcroft slightly when participants were told about Wilson's offer to appoint her senator.
I'm not a fan of Ashcroft but this base canard about losing to a dead man is often bruited about by those who haven't examined what happened after the plane crash.
-
BTW, I'm unsure of how I feel about this SC decision. On the one hand, I'm very glad States Rights won out. On the other, it does seem to me that the dissenters have a point about Federal regulation of medicine.
Still, in the balance, "power down" is a good policy. Let the folks in the trenchs have as much power as you can push down to them. The guys far from the scene should have less say in our lives.
-
Does the campaign reform bill rule out faking your own tragic death two weeks before an election?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not a fan of Ashcroft but this base canard about losing to a dead man is often bruited about by those who haven't examined what happened after the plane crash.
What mean canard in this context ?
-
scuttlebutt of dubious veracity.
junk, crap, etc.
-
Wow. It didn't take long to find out where Roberts truly stood on State's vs Federal rights.
By extension, it didn't take long to find out how Republicans really feel about that issue by appointing him.
(Republicans = no states rights)
I can't wait until a case involving the executive branch hits the courts and these jokers roll over, completely forgetting that they are the 4th branch of government, with oversight being implicit in the job description.
Righto.
Liars.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wow. It didn't take long to find out where Roberts truly stood on State's vs Federal rights.
By extension, it didn't take long to find out how Republicans really feel about that issue by appointing him.
(Republicans = no states rights)
I can't wait until a case involving the executive branch hits the courts and these jokers roll over, completely forgetting that they are the 4th branch of government, with oversight being implicit in the job description.
Righto.
Liars.
I think you got it wrong Nash. Reps are typically for less Federal Governement, ipso facto are pro States Rights, while the Dems are completely the opposite, wanting to shell out every last 'borrowed' Federal dollar to to regulate and dole to 'protect' the people (mostly from themselves).
This wasn't what it was really about however. Reps currently in power just used their current government position to to try and enforce another Rep belief, generally a religious one. That all life is sacred and must be preserved, regardless of the human pain and suffering it will induce in both patient and their family. This was a religious issue and the ammunition the Reps had in hand was Federal power. It just got in the way of States Rights is all, so people naturally assume that was the core issue.
-
Originally posted by Sloehand
I think you got it wrong Nash. Reps are typically for less Federal Governement, ipso facto are pro States Rights, while the Dems are completely the opposite, wanting to shell out every last 'borrowed' Federal dollar to to regulate and dole to 'protect' the people (mostly from themselves).
no I think you have it wrong. republicans talk the game of state rights but don't hold to it when what the state wants to do goes against their agenda. in other words they believe the states have the right to do what the feds say (this only holds true if a republican is in office. if the federal gov't goes under the control of the democrats then you will see the republicans back the states in opposition to the fed)
on what issues has this administration backed the states rights?
assisted suicide? no
medical marijuana? no
(I may be mistaken on this next one, since it's an older issue and from memory) but wasn't it Illinois that wanted to allow their citizens to get their meds from Canada but the feds shut them down on that as well.
is there any issue that this administration has deferred to a state on when the will of the state opposed this administration. if there is I'm not aware of it.
you need to stop listening to what the Republicans say and watch what they actually do.
-
Just curious.... If you are the victim of assisted suicide... is your life insurance still good? What if it is for say.... millions?
lazs
-
Laz, in a lot of policies suicide is covered after the policy has been in force for two years.
Straffo! Duck! ;) Actually canard means an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.
Medical Marijuana: Do the Feds or the States have the right to regulate a Doctor prescribing marijuana to patients?
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy and Scalia vote to give the Feds the power.
O'Connor, Thomas and Rhenquist (now deceased) vote to give the States the power.
Assisted Suicide: Do the FEs or the States have the right to regulate a Doctor prescribing drugs to assist in suicide?
Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia voted to give the Feds the power.
Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer voted to give the States the power
I believe Sloehand has it right. The only consistent "States Rights" vote in both cases is O'Connor. Looking at the total flip by both sides, it seems to me this was clearly a "right to life" vote and not a "States Rights" vote. In other words this is what we'd see if Roe V Wade was tested at the SC right now.
This one WAS right to life instead of states rights, IMO.
-
I'm not talking about the courts decisions. it's supposed to be fair, impartial, and concerned with the word of law, not party politics. :rofl ya I know but it is supposed to be.
I'm talking about this administration. not whether or not the supreme court backed the Feds or the States in the fight but did the feds fight the states at all.
if this administration truly walked it's talk on states rights then the attorney general would have never fought the states on them in th first place. they would have acknowledged that the people of the state had made a decision on the issue and respected that states right to handle their own business as they saw fit.
they didn't though. they are only interested in an individual states rights when the wishes of the state align themselves with the republican party.
-
Republicans on the hill are just as liberal if not more than the democrats.
-
Originally posted by Toad
LStraffo! Duck! ;) Actually canard means an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.
Damm ! exactly like in french :D
-
Originally posted by Sloehand
I think you got it wrong Nash. Reps are typically for less Federal Governement, ipso facto are pro States Rights, while the Dems are completely the opposite, wanting to shell out every last 'borrowed' Federal dollar to to regulate and dole to 'protect' the people (mostly from themselves).
This wasn't what it was really about however. Reps currently in power just used their current government position to to try and enforce another Rep belief, generally a religious one. That all life is sacred and must be preserved, regardless of the human pain and suffering it will induce in both patient and their family. This was a religious issue and the ammunition the Reps had in hand was Federal power. It just got in the way of States Rights is all, so people naturally assume that was the core issue.
Not to mention most republicans think pat roberts is an bellybutton hat.
-
Perhaps I should be more clear.
I don't think Medical Marijuana OR Oregon suicide was decided on Constitutionality.
O'Connor is the ONLY justice that decided on Constitutionality in both cases. (Would have been interesting to see how Rehnquist voted.) The others served their particular ideology in both cases and that's too bad.
IMO, of course.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Perhaps I should be more clear.
I don't think Medical Marijuana OR Oregon suicide was decided on Constitutionality.
O'Connor is the ONLY justice that decided on Constitutionality in both cases. (Would have been interesting to see how Rehnquist voted.) The others served their particular ideology in both cases and that's too bad.
IMO, of course.
I agree with your assessment of the court. no argument at all.
however the point isn't about the courts decisions so much as why this administration is fighting the rights of states to decide their own issues if this is truly an administration that believes in states rights.
-
So you're saying that the people running the Federal government want even more power? That they want the Federal government to be supreme in all things?
Say it ain't so!
I guess it's different when the other party is holding power and running the Federal government though, right?
:)
-
Ok... so most policies cover suicide after 2 years. Is there any other reason anyone can think of that a person might want another dead?
I don't know... It seems that a lot of people have felt so bad that they wanted to commit suicide. I don't want doctors to be involved except like in my grandfathers case... "this perscrition if infinitely renewable at any time... if you take more than about 10 of them at any one time tho you will not wake up"
I allways figured people had a right to suicide. There may even be cases where someone does it for em out of mercy... I would rather a jury decide tho than have it become an industry....
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
So you're saying that the people running the Federal government want even more power? That they want the Federal government to be supreme in all things?
Say it ain't so!
I guess it's different when the other party is holding power and running the Federal government though, right?
:)
yes it is different. the democrats didn't run for office on a platform of states rights and less federal involvement in our lives.
you constantly hear "you vote democrat? hope you like big gov't, the Dem's are all about big gov't. they want the feds to control everything"
the point is that the republicans are just as bad if not worse, they rally support from naive people who actually think they are gonna deliver on the promises of less federal involvement.
I know many people who's primary reason for voting republican is for less federal control of their lives. kinda sad since they aren't getting what they're looking for from either party.
-
In my opinion liberals in america promote european style socialism, examples include but are not limited to:
====
Government welfare for all able bodied who choose not to work
Punitive taxation for those who choose to work
Substandard state mandated healthcare for all (Quality healthcare for none)
Restriction on freedom to own personal firearms
Emphasis on rehab of criminals in place of Punishment, including no capitol punishment for severe crimes against the innocent.
====
Its about liberals and conservatives, not so much about republican or democrat for me. Conservative democrat trumps a liberal republican EVERY TIME in my book.
-
"I allways figured people had a right to suicide. There may even be cases where someone does it for em out of mercy... I would rather a jury decide tho than have it become an industry.... "
Death houses are already an industry. It's called the nursing home industry. It is FAR better to get it over with quickly than to condemn someone to the slow death through torture and neglect in a nursing home. Most people would rather just not think about this entire issue, though. Too many people just refuse to believe the truth about how bad it is--until they end up there themselves. Of course, by then it's too late.
J_A_B
-
so what is the percentage of people that end up in nursintg homes? I had heard once that it was like 4% of the population.
You want to commit suicide.... fine.. do it. I just don't want to have death mills like we have abortion mills.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I just don't want to have death mills like we have abortion mills.
lazs
I see you've never been in a hospital in Florida.
-
"so what is the percentage of people that end up in nursintg homes?"
Probably very similar than the percentage of people who would kill themselves given the opportunity, or would die naturally if not forced unwillingly to remain artifically alive.
That's the problem...many of these people are FORCED to live. They don't have a choice, often being physically restrained and force-fed so as to be unable to "harm" themselves. It's real nice, isn't it? Law-abiding citizens are locked up in jail-cell size rooms and tied down with alarms, having commited no crime beyond growing old. Then the same people who tie them down often don't even bother to come in when the poor guy craps himself or something.
How do I know this? I've seen it many, many times. Few people outside the industry--and not everyone inside--realize or care just how horrible it really is. I worked in that industry as long as I could tolerate it; eventually my moral character forced me to find a different line of work. My wife likewise works in that industry. I know what I'm talking about.
People try to say assisted legal suicide is so horrible. What a laugh. Such people won't realize just how wrong they are until it's too late. Want to know the REAL reason why it's "bad"? Because several industries out there (medication, nursing homes, etc) stand to lose income if their captives suddenly have a choice. Well, screw them. Screw the "health care" industry. I respect used-car salesman more.
I don't say this often, but on this matter--if you disagree with me, then you're wrong. I can only hope you learn the truth before it's too late.
J_A_B
-
nope... haven't seen florida hospitals. Would an "assisted suicide" bill make em better?
lazs
-
seems like everybody on the east coast gets sent to florida on retirement. End resullt is the place is teeming with wrinkle ranches.. assisted living communities abound. The hospitals seem like roach motels... old people check in... they don't check out.
I'd never want to get sick in florida... hospital care down there runs as long as your insurance does.. then yer dead.
-
sounds crappy... I think I will retire in Oregon or Texas. No one in my family has ever died in an old folks home.... most made their 90's or died young... my grandmother is now 98.
lazs
-
It's not a right to die law, it's about prescribing illegal doses of drugs to people. We discussed it yesterday in U.S. Government and Politics. It's commonly linked with right to die, but that's not really what the fight is about. I can give you more info when i gte home from work if you want.
-
I think your "death mills" scenario is a little bit fantastical, Lazs. The law, as it currently stands, requires the patient to be diagnosed as being within 6 months of death, and that diagnosis has to be confirmed by a second physician. And in the first place, this process has to be requested by the individual who is dying. I can understand why you may not agree with it, and certainly why you might not want it for yourself, but I'd say the chances that it'll ever affect you directly are pretty dang slim.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
In my opinion liberals in america promote european style socialism, examples include but are not limited to:
====
Government welfare for all able bodied who choose not to work
Punitive taxation for those who choose to work
Substandard state mandated healthcare for all (Quality healthcare for none)
Restriction on freedom to own personal firearms
Emphasis on rehab of criminals in place of Punishment, including no capitol punishment for severe crimes against the innocent.
====
Its about liberals and conservatives, not so much about republican or democrat for me. Conservative democrat trumps a liberal republican EVERY TIME in my book.
OH MY GAWD You've been to Canada
-
I dont like the idea. I agree w/ Lazs..if you wanna die then do it yourself. Once murder becomes convenient for some victims, it wont be long before it will be at the convenience of the state.
-
I just can't believe that we need a law that allows the weak willed to have a physican take em out. You wanna die? fine.... go do it... I don't want you to use my doctor to do it.
Doctor wants to give you a script for 100 pills "for pain" that is fine too. You really want to go? take em all. leave the doctors out of it or change their oath.
lazs
-
maybe they could just leave you and the gov't out of it and let the doctor and the patient decide on the best course of action.
laz I thought you were for less gov't control in our lives.
-
I am... I said that I believe that a person has a right to commit suicide... I don't believe in making doctors tools of the government to do it.
Who do you think is going to "regulate" this new industry?
lazs
-
they are not making doctors tools of the gov't. the law simply removes gov't restriction. no doctor is required to participate.
the only real gov't involvement is requiring at least 2 doctors to sign off on it before the meds can be prescribed.
serious gov't involvement would be things like taking his medical license for prescribing the meds or charging the doctor with murder for his involvement.
-
I also do not believe in people "helping" other people commit suicide other than "Oh... can't reach the gun? let me get that for you." or... "here is your script for pain pills... I am gonna make it out for 6 months worth"
you wanna murder someone? murder yourself of pull the plug on a criminal..
lazs
-
If you don't want assisted suicide, don't get one.
Otherwise, it's none of your business.
-
Woot!
To all those oppose, a little history. When this first passed back in 97, it barely made it through. About 52% approved or something like that. Republicans in the legislature didn't really favor this law so they sent it to the voters again where it again passed but this time with over 70% approval. Basically voters giving to old FU to the state legislature. Ashcroft then tried about three different ways to kill it with no success, something I never got tired of seeing.
It is nice to know that if I were to come down with a deadly and crippling condition that I have the option to end it before my family would have to watch me waste away to nothing. I don't know if I would follow through with such a thing, but Oregon having the guts to support such a law makes me proud to live here. Also no sales tax and others pump your gas make it nice too. And that no sales tax things works other places too. We just bought a car in Washington and didn't have to pay tax :D