The firedoglake folks are unhappy because they say Roberts reneged on his 8/10/05 statement that he would "start with the supposition that one has the right to be left alone" when he talked about end-of-life care with Sen. Wyden (Ore). They're convinced that this turnabout means that Alito can't be trusted.

I don't understand why the "conservative" justices Scalia, Roberts, et al voted to uphold a federal goverment administrative decision (Ashcdroft) vs the rights of states and individuals. I thought Scalia was a "strict constructionist" - state's rights and all.

And Roberts - what a stealth justice. He foxed everybody. I thought Bush was going to appoint justices that would support individual's rights vs the federal government telling us what we can and cannot do. Guess I was wrong. I must be naive. Or maybe the conservative postion now is that the fed gov knows best?

Helloooo, conservatives! How about federalism?

Helloooo? FEDERALISM, anyone?

Scalia has never, ever been big on federalism where to support a federalist position would undermine the federal government's ability to prosecute the drug war or make social policy.

Thomas seems to have hit the nail on the head in his dissent. He essentially asks how this majority opinion is consistent with the Court's ruling in the medical marijuana case, last year (in which Thomas also dissented). As usual, Thomas is best at distilling an issue down to its essence, then smacking his colleagues around for their hypocrisy.

In regards to federalism, I don't believe states
should interfere with a doctors oath to preserve
life.
If a state wants to make suicide legal, fine. But
let the morons kill themselves, not have a doctor
help them.
BTW, what if, hypothetically speaking, all the
doctors in Oregon decided not to assist in
killing patients who wanted to die? Would the
state force them to?

This isn't a question about Federalism or states rights. It was a narrowly focused issue about whether the Controlled Substance Act can limit how a doctor can perscribe drugs. The FDA is supposed to determine what drugs can be perscribed, and for what reason. Unless the FDA says that a drug can be used to end life, doctors aren't supposed to perscribe them for that purpose.

The reason that Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia dissented on this issue against the conservative idea of states rights is because they read the law, and understood the widely upheld view that the FDA has authority over the use of perscription drugs via the commerce clause.

The Supreme Court is filled with dipshits.

Turns out conservatives are a bunch of rank hypocrites. Who knew?

Turns out they need their daddy, er, the federal government to tell them what to do.

Candy assess. Post 9/11, wingers are the new nancy boys.

And i,ll bet they will go and block a loging sale becuase it threatens the spotted owl or the coho salmon. We dont have judges anymore just a bunch of self serving tyrants

Master of None,

But saying this isn't about federalism, but rather is about the Commerce Clause, is kind of contradictory, no?

Almost every federal power not specifically enumerated in the Const. relies upon an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause.

To allow doctors to violate the Controlled Substance Act you would have to say the FDA doesn't have authority to control and regulate perscription drugs. This authority has been upheld time and time again. Just because this is based on the Commerce Clause, and the Commerce Clause has been used expansively in the past, doesn't suggest that the FDA's authority is derived from an over reaching use of the the Commerce Clause. The FDA is the best example of the reason for the Commerce Clause. (IMHO)

I thought conservatives and most Republicans were for state's rights?

Or, does that only apply to what THEY want, and not necessarily what the people who live in the state want??

Over the age of 50, get the hell out of Or.
Got a fair sized estate that a relative may want, get the hell out of Or.
Got a brain, get the hell out of Or.

Or, does that only apply to what THEY want, and not necessarily what the people who live in the state want??

Yes! Exactly. I think you have it.

Well, it took quite a while, but you appear to have finally posted an honest comment.

Hypocritical, but honest.

What's hypocritical about it? We want to control your life, we are controlling your life, we'll continue to control your life.

Get used to it.

"It appears the then-AG (Ashcroft) interpreted a federal law against the prescribing of overdoses as barring physician assisted suicide. I suppose the actual law contemplated, at least on its face, negligent or accidental overdoses, not intentional ones at the request of a dying patient."

If the desired effect is the death of the patient, there is no such thing as an overdose. Unless you just get wasteful with the stuff.

SWLiP: U said "He essentially asks how this majority opinion is consistent with the Court's ruling in the medical marijuana case, last year" U hit the nail on the head here, albeit unintentionally. It all makes sense if you postulate that a) this case was decided correctly, but b) the medical marijuana case was decided incorrectly. If congress has not specifically passed a federal law that says a) assisted suicide is illegal or that b) the medical use of marijuana is illegal, both should be allowed by states, right?

Another way to look at this is that judges are NOT doctors and shouldn't limit a doctor's approaches to medicine. Only careful consideration and debate by congress should do that.

wait a minute...

which one of you assholes has been writing these notes in my Ken Mehlman playbook?!

Who, on this blog, if given the choice, does NOT want control over how they die?

And how many of you have lived through a close relative, suffering and in intense pain during the last months of their lives?

I did so with my father (lung cancer) and am experiencing it once again with my mother-in-law (the same) right now, and it is not something I would wish on anyone.

I discussed this with my father on many occasions and believe me, if he had had the choice, he would have opted for a dignified passing.

looks like a states rights issue to me, but then so was roe. my question is why support the states right to kill sick people, but deny states the right to outlaw the killing of a fetus?

A better question is this: Why is the government, federal or state, telling people how to live their lives?

If I want to pass away in a dignified manner, who are they to tell me different?

If I were a woman and was pregnant, who are they to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body? (Yes, I understand some of you think a fetus is a human being, but many do not.)

For that matter, are the conservatives on this blog saying they actually support the federal government telling them what they should or should not be doing with their lives...and no, I'm not talking about "laws" governing violence, stealing, etc., I'm talking about whether you can whatever you want with your own body, as long as it does not interfere with or harm another human being.

Boy, talk about bringing a discussion to a screeching halt.

It looks like, all you have to do is ask a question relating to an actual situation, versus the usual blustering about judges, politics, etc., and everybody bails out.

I think this illustrates exactly how we would ALL react to a "choice"...when it actually effects us or a loved on personally.

Talk is cheap...action takes guts.

A better question is this: Why is the government, federal or state, telling people how to live their lives?

They do that every fucking day. It's known as law.

They regulate what you can do to yourself as well as what you can do to other people, because some self-destructive behaviors historically lead to socially destructive behaviors.

If I want to pass away in a dignified manner, who are they to tell me different?

The problem is you're too chickenshit to do it yourself. You want someone else's help. Therein lies the problem. A person killing herself/himself has not committed a punishable crime. A person killing another person possibly has committed a crime.

It is a very tricky proposition to give a person power to kill another person. That power, like all power, tends to be abused. Google "Leo Alexander" to see where giving too much power to doctors can lead.

If I were a woman and was pregnant, who are they to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own body? (Yes, I understand some of you think a fetus is a human being, but many do not.)

By your link of this issue to abortion, you show that you understand the crux of the problem, but you are on the dangerous side of it.

Once one portion of humanity is declared as not being properly human, then the resistance to killing them begins to erode. That has historically led to governments constantly disqualifying other portions as people, and subsequently eliminating them until a "sustainable" (sustainable by the government, that is) population exists.

It's funny how the sustainable level never includes Jews.

Sue, funny "ha-ha" or funny "weird"?

Oh, and if the people behind euthanasia in Oregon were to stop there, I would (almost) have no problem with that; I could stay out of Oregon and tell my family members never to set foot there. Hell, if Oregonians want to reduce their political power via lower population, then I say let them. More votes for us.

But the euthanasia crowd isn't stopping there. Oregon is merely a testing ground; now that they've been successful, the euthanasia groups will roll this out into other states using the exact same propaganda techniques I described before in the gay threads. Weak minded people like the rank-and-file leftists will swallow it whole, if they haven't already done so.

Sue, funny "ha-ha" or funny "weird"?

Depends on who you talk to. Eichmann thought it was hilarious.

When conservatives oppose some societal change that liberals assure us will be beneficial, I've noticed a recurring pattern. It's not so much that particular change that conservatives oppose; it's the next step down that road.

Liberals decry it as slippery-slope hysteria, but there's a reason conservatives keep going back to this line of argument. Time after time, it's vindicated. "Right to privacy" became "right to government-funded partial-birth abortion without parental notification for 12-year-old girls." The gay marriage movement's ranks abound with people interested in normalizing and sanctioning other "alternative lifestyles," and groups like the ACLU assure these people that they are fighting for all of their goals. And in the Netherlands, where the "right to die with dignity" has been recognized for several years, doctors are empowered to make those difficult decisions for patients who are temporarily unable to speak up about their own desires.

What really bothers conservatives about this "right to die with dignity" is that it will inevitably transform into a "duty to die for the greater good." Socialized medicine would greatly accelerate this process. I don't see any hypocrisy in using federal power now, in defense of the sanctity of life, to prevent that power from being used later to take the decision out of the hands of the patient and his family.

Wow. Reading comprehension is definitely a rare commodity.

Raich (the medical marijuana case) was about federalism. Oregon (the assisted suicide case) had little to nothing to do with federalism. After Raich, it's pretty clear that Congress has the authority to prohibit the use of certain drugs entirely, and by extension to regulate their use. The question in Oregon was whether Congress has already exercised that power, i.e., whether Congress intended the Controlled Substances Act to cover assisted suicide. The liberal/conservative split reflects a split in how to interpret statutes (legislative intent vs. literally interpreting the words of the statute), not federalism.

Jeez. This is not as interesting as most of you make it out to be.

"The liberal/conservative split reflects a split in how to interpret statutes"

Absolutely correct. The "conservative" justices interpreted the words of the statute, which is exactly what we conservatives have been saying we want our judges to do.

Sue Dohnim,
In regards to the government telling us what to do, when you say: "They do that every fucking day. It's known as law"...that all depends.

"Laws" pertain to the government keeping "order," not issuing demands or edicts relating to our everyday lives...or deaths. (If they pass a "law" saying you can't eat chicken...would you stop eating chicken? Oh, and what are your thoughts on laws against eating pussy...do you adhere to that one, too?)

And your comment, regarding people who want or "need" a doctor to assist them in dying as just being "chickenshit" is beyond the pale.

Are you a complete fucking moron? Or, are you actually saying people who are infirmed, in comas, in extreme pain, too old to handle anything even approaching something like this...are just "chickenshits"...looking for an easy way out??

The abortion argument I'll leave to the standard for and against crowd, because of it's intricacies relating to religion, etc., but as for the dying with dignity argument, I find it rather difficult to believe you've every in your life, been confronted with someone who has to make a decision like this.

I find your rationale and inane comments degrading and incredibly stupid...and someday, if you're unlucky enough to be trapped in a body that cannot handle the situation...you may find this easier to understand.

I find your rationale and inane comments degrading and incredibly stupid...

I find your intellect to be diminished. If I shared your Hegelian views, I would say your quality of life is also diminished and therefore you should exercise your right to die.

It's a good thing I don't share your views.

and someday, if you're unlucky enough to be trapped in a body that cannot handle the situation...you may find this easier to understand.

If I am terminal, lucid, and in pain, there are indescribably miraculous pain medications available now to ease my suffering without killing me. This was the former definition of palliative care before the word was co-opted by the euthanasia activists.

If I am not lucid, then I cannot feel pain, therefore I cannot be suffering. There is then no reason to kill me off other than utilitarian ones.

Giving up and asking for an easy way out of life is not dignity. A right is not something that can be forced upon you. You have a right to life, a right to liberty, and a right to own property, for example, but you do not have a right to die "with dignity."

I don't have a constitutional right to have a sammich.

I believe those powers have been enumerated to the states.

Yes, but can you have a sammich with dignity?

I can put the dignity on the side and you can spread it on for yourself, mmkay?

I think in the landmark case White v. Marble Rye was where the constitutional right to have condiments on the side was established.

I always use a napkin when I eat a sammich.

"You have a right to life, a right to liberty, and a right to own property, for example, but you do not have a right to die "with dignity.""

Can not "death with dignity" be liberating?

...and someday, if you're unlucky enough to be trapped in a body that cannot handle the situation...you may find this easier to understand.

Another Twilight Zone episode, Mike? You really liked that show, huh, Mike?

Theme music to accompany post for...effect.

The only good human is a dead human.

Sue DumbOne:
You're not only an idiot, you have absolutely no idea what terminal patients have to endure.

When you say: "If I am terminal, lucid, and in pain, there are indescribably miraculous pain medications available now to ease my suffering without killing me"...what you're really saying this this: As long as you're not in pain, why not just stay right where you are...regardless of the indignity and pain thrust upon your loved ones and friends. If this is your idea of life, you are one sad piece of work.

When you say: "If I am not lucid, then I cannot feel pain, therefore I cannot be suffering"...you actually believe people who are "not lucid" also do not feel pain?

Even YOU can't really believe that, although the more I hear, the more I believe you are either very young and haven't experienced someone's death, or you're very stupid and just don't care. If you want to prove MY point, ask a doctor why people who are in vegetative states are still given anesthesia before surgery.

When you say: "Giving up and asking for an easy way out of life is not dignity"...who do you think you're speaking for...everybody? It is THEIR life, and if they want to die, it's their choice, not some moron like yourself.

And, I love your last comment: "you do not have a right to die "with dignity."

Just wait, asshole...if you're as unlucky as you are stupid...you'll get to find out for yourself.

Hey, Barf...&...Texas Asshole:
Ever had a father, mother, sister, brother or good friend who suffered through a terminal illness?

Well, if not...one of these days both of you will...and then we'll see just how funny you think it is.

Cripes, does abortion have to be dragged into every argument? The problem with abortion is the two sides can't agree on the basic premise of whether the fetus is a person with rights or not, so in essence the two sides are not even arguing about the same set of accepted "facts", so it's pointless.

I think the "right to die" thing is at least potentially a simpler issue because we're pretty much starting on the same page. Sorry, Sue, but even though I'm probably closer to your position than I am to Mike's, I have to agree with him that your comments are pretty outrageously insensitive. You have to be pretty clueless if when considering the situation of someone so sick and hopeless that they want to die the word you come up with to describe them is "chickenshit". Nice.

I don't know what the easy solution is here. I think making suicide illegal is pretty meaningless. I think making assisted suicide illegal is probably not much different in effect. Ideally I guess it would be legal but somehow we'd have perfect protection against anyone being pushed into doing it or being allowed to do it when they weren't in the right frame of mind. Then it would be a matter of each person's convictions, and those with religious or other reasons to not do it simply wouldn't. But I don't see how we can have such perfect protection against those problems, so that makes me queasy.

I almost tend to want to keep it illegal just so it's clear that it's extremely serious. Doctors have been unofficially doing this for a long, long time, and you rarely hear of it becoming an issue. That's because they only did it in very serious cases, and maybe that's for the best.

On the other hand, I know that's a completely stupid "solution"...

As long as you're not in pain, why not just stay right where you are...regardless of the indignity and pain thrust upon your loved ones and friends. If this is your idea of life, you are one sad piece of work.

Yes, Mom must get the hell out of the way so as not to inconvenience you and your boyfriend. "Oh, I'm so sorry Andy, that drooling lump over there who gave birth to me has ruined my dignity and made me so ashamed! I'll have her iced in the morning and cremated this weekend so we'll never have to look at her again! Let's go shopping!"

You're a pretty sad piece of work to want people dead so you can feel better.

You should have told this woman how much dignity she could have retained if she had just let her daughter die.

You should tell this man how undignified and futile it was for him to take care of his wife for four years.

You should tell me how much dignity I could have if I hadn't helped take care of my comatose maternal grandmother and my legless paternal grandfather during the last years of their lives.

You should tell my husband how stupid and futile it was for him and me to care for his invalid father for the last years of his life.

You should tell my oldest child about his lost dignity when we allowed his grandfather to live long enough to hold him, instead of asking a doctor to put the old man out of his misery.

Then you should hope and pray you have a family that gives more of a shit about you than you do about them.

But now that I'm through crying, Mike, I want to thank you.

I want to thank you for helping me remember why I could never be brainwashed into thinking that dying is preferable to living.

Mike's Greates Hits, available on CD & Cassette.

Just wait, asshole...if you're as unlucky as you are stupid...you'll get to find out for yourself.

Well, if not...one of these days both of you will...and then we'll see just how funny you think it is.

Dood, you are fucking crazy. No doubt about it.

If it's any consolation, I believe Dave was a born a poor black child in Mississippi around 1855.

Sue Dolt:
Are you really this stupid?

"Yes, Mom must get the hell out of the way so as not to inconvenience you and your boyfriend."???

You actually believe people are allowing their parents to choose the time, place and way they pass away...because they're "inconvenienced"??

And: "Oh, I'm so sorry Andy, that drooling lump over there who gave birth to me has ruined my dignity and made me so ashamed!"

"Drooling lump"??? Are you actually talking about an elderly and infirmed human being? And, "Ruined my dignity and made me ashamed?."?? What the fuck are you talking about? It's primarily the "dignity" of the terminal patient that's being tarnished...and the "shame" that accompanies this indignity is what got this entire movement started.

And, if it's actually true, which I find impossible to believe, that you took care of anybody, ever...you should ashamed of what you're saying here...and be happy they had the strength to actually "hold your eldest child"...because that's the precise point: People who want to die, DO NOT posess the strength to even consider any such thing.

You are absolutely the most horrible person I have ever encountered on any blog or discussion board...and I'd feel sorry for you if I really thought you deserved it.

Barf:
Blow me.

Bob,
Get away while you can. I feel dirty just responding to these horrible people.

What a disgusting bunch.

regardless of the indignity and pain thrust upon your loved ones and friends

Yeah, those pesky sick people sure are inconsiderate, inflicting me with indignity and pain.