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
