|
When Judge
John Roberts was going through his nomination process last fall, he assured Oregon’s
Senator Ron Wyden that he respected state’s rights, which led the senator to
vote for his nomination. Wyden defended the Death with Dignity
Law from federal challenges even though his own religious upbringing opposes
it. Oregon voters have twice voted to enact this law, the second time in a
statewide ballot challenge after it first went into effect. The problem
many of us see here on cases such as this is that we now have a bench of
Catholic-raised judges, who cannot separate their theological background from
the law. Senators need to keep in
mind Roberts’ vote today as they considered Judge Alito’s nomination, or as
Judge Bork said in a CNN interview recently, “The object
nowadays is to get confirmed. People will say pretty much - or avoid saying
pretty much in order to get confirmed.” Note: the AP headline
read, “SC upholds Oregon Suicide Law”.
Here in Oregon, we prefer the title that best describes how it is
practiced, non-violently, with a doctor’s supervision, after a careful
screening process, only for terminally-ill patients: death with dignity. - kwc Supreme Court upholds Oregon [Death
With Dignity Act] By Gina Holland,
Associated Press Writer, Jan. 17, 2006 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 Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens.
Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia and Thomas 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. 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." Thomas wrote his own
dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts
did not write separately. Justices have dealt
with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally
ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then,
justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to
die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by
then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to
allow the practice. Roberts strongly
hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the
administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote
would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court. The case is Gonzales
v. Oregon, 04-623. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_assisted_suicide |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
