Want to commit suicide? Move to Oregon

[StoneGold]

God knows there's nothing better to do in Oregon. But the Supreme Court upheld their assisted suicide law, 6-3.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_assisted_suicide;_ylt=Aq9vfsevG3QVaaSqoh_nl ASs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Anyone want to bet that next month, it's 5-4?

[Tadhg Adams]

I was just about to post this, I saw it on CSPAN.

I downloaded the opinion but won't have time to read it before my lunch hour ends.

[StoneGold]

You and your foul CSPAN! A curse on thee!

[Michael P]

Am I reading this wrong, or did Scalia say that the government's right to regulate medicine trumps the individual's right to make their own medical decisions?

[Michael P]

I was just about to post this, I saw it on CSPAN.

I downloaded the opinion but won't have time to read it before my lunch hour ends.
What's the link for that?

[StoneGold]

Am I reading this wrong, or did Scalia say that the government's right to regulate medicine trumps the individual's right to make their own medical decisions?
Seems to.



Because states rights are only important as long as they don't mess with your own personal philosophies.

[Tadhg Adams]

Am I reading this wrong, or did Scalia say that the government's right to regulate medicine trumps the individual's right to make their own medical decisions?

I am reading his dissenting opinion and it seems that it all stems from his interpretation of "legitimate medical purpose"

[Michael P]

I am reading his dissenting opinion and it seems that it all stems from his interpretation of "legitimate medical purpose"
And again I ask for linkys.

[Tadhg Adams]

And again I ask for linkys.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html

Sorry, I somehow missed your first request. I was packing my stuff up. I'm about 3 pages into Scalia's dissent, the dude can talk and talk.

[Ray R.]

This is from the SCOTUS Blog:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Oregon to continue to allow doctors to provide the drugs that terminally ill patients may use to take their own lives. The Court, saying that the U.S. attorney general had sought to make "a radical shift" of power from state to federal government, ruled that the head of the Justice Department does not have the power to bar doctors from prescribing lethal drugs for suicides. So far, Oregon is the only state to permit that medical practice.

The ruling divided the Court 6-3; Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was one of the dissenters -- his first dissent, although he did not personally write an opinion.

The Court conceded that the attorney general does have the authority to write rules for enforcing federal laws on illegal drugs. But, it said, federal law "does not authorize the Attorney General to bar dispensing coontrolled substances for assisted suicide in the face of a state medical regime permitting such conduct."

While allowing doctor-aided suicide to continue when a state allows it, the Court made no sweeping declarations about patients' or doctors' rights. The decision, rather, was based almost entirely upon the Court's interpretation of what Congress had done in giving the federal government the authority to regulate the prescription of drugs by doctors.

In a bow to states' rights, the majority commented: "The background principles of our federal system...belie the notion that Congress would use such an obscure grant of authority to regulate areas traditionally supervised by the states' police power." Thus, the Court said, it was unnecessary to determine whether Congress had made a clear statement of intent to interfere with state authority over medical practice, or whether Congress had intended to preempt that state authority.

The federal Controlled Substances Act "and our case law," the Court said, "amply support the conclusion that Congress regulates medical practice insofar as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood. Beyond this, however, the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally....Tbe structure and operation of the CSA presume and rely upon a functioning medical profession regulated under the State's police powers."

"It is difficult," the Court added, "to defend the Attorney General's declaration that the statute impliedly criminalizes physician-assisted suicide."

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, thus illustrating that he will continue to have a major role to play as a centrist on the Court after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement, which appears to be imminent. O'Connor joined in the Kennedy opinion. Others on the opinion were the Court's more liberal members, Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Dissenting, along with Roberts, were the Court's two most conservative members, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Scalia, in an opinion joined by the other two dissenters, said the Court distorted the Controlled Substances Act and disregarded "settled principles" on how to interpret statutes. Thomas, in a separate opinion speaking only for himself, accused the majority of making a constitutional decision "under the guise of statutory interpretation."


I agree with the decision. And if anything, this opens up a potential avenue for things like medical marijuana and other potentially life-changing alternative medicines or those who fall under DOJ scrutiny, as long as both the state and the doctor attest to the efficacy of the drug.

And I say, so much for federalism from the right wing of the court. Leave it to the states if it's not specifically carved out by the Constitution, unless we're talking about controlled substances....then it's strictly a federal issue. Yeah, right.

[Michael P]

Reading the decision, it seems that the crux of the matter is who defines "legitimate medical purpose" as used in the CSA, the federal government, or the states.

[Hoss]

This is a clear example of how judges can find ways to jusitfy their beliefs with seemingly legal arguments. Anyone in this country that argues that ideology isn't their motivating factor for wanting a supreme court justice is lying. Well, even though the government can take your house so the rich can get richer, it is good to know that we still get to decide whether we want to live or not.

[Hoss]

Reading the decision, it seems that the crux of the matter is who defines "legitimate medical purpose" as used in the CSA, the federal government, or the states.


Scalia seems to believe that he gets to make that decision. My guess is Scalito will want to have the same discretionary power.

[The Humanist Hero]

Seems to.



Because states rights are only important as long as they don't mess with your own personal philosophies.
States' rights only applies when it works in favor of right-wing principles, like deciding to put up a 10 Commandments in the state Supreme Court, or passing laws against homosexual sex, or owning black people.

[Tadhg Adams]

Scalia seems to believe that he gets to make that decision. My guess is Scalito will want to have the same discretionary power.

I have a question, wouldn't the Controlled Substances Act by virtue of being a federal law be interpreted on the federal level?

Edit: And can we not call him Scalito? It seems to be unneeded snark.

[Michael P]

I have a question, wouldn't the Controlled Substances Act by virtue of being a federal law be interpreted on the federal level?

Yes. The thing is, the Oregon law has nothing at all to do with the CSA, at least as I'm reading it. Ashcroft just tried to use it as his justification for his fiat.

Edit: And can we not call him Scalito? It seems to be unneeded snark.
I agree. IF we must damn the man let him be damned for what he is.

[macul]

States' rights only applies when it works in favor of right-wing principles, like deciding to put up a 10 Commandments in the state Supreme Court, or passing laws against homosexual sex, or owning black people.

Who was it that voted it was ok to take away a person's home so a condo could be built in its place?

[The Humanist Hero]

Who was it that voted it was ok to take away a person's home so a condo could be built in its place?
What does that have to do with the right's hypocrisy when it comes to states' rights, as in this case, or in the case of medicinal marijuana in CA?

[macul]

What does that have to do with the right's hypocrisy when it comes to states' rights, as in this case, or in the case of medicinal marijuana in CA?

Just a question. I'm wondering how you can reconcile those two notions.

[Michael P]

Well, I just found a blatant lie in Scalia's dissent:

The clear-statement rule based on the presumptionagainst pre-emption does not apply because the Directive does not pre-empt any state law, cf. id., at 456–457; Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U. S. 355, 359 (2002).

Is he kidding? The Directive's stated purpose is to pre-empt a state law!

[The Humanist Hero]

Just a question. I'm wondering how you can reconcile those two notions.
I don't have to reconcile them. For one thing, they don't even deal with the same legal questions. One involves the extent to which the government can utilize eminent domain and the other involves states' rights.

[Hoss]

[QUOTE=Tadhg Adams]I have a question, wouldn't the Controlled Substances Act by virtue of being a federal law be interpreted on the federal level?

Yeah, but Scalia deciding what constitutes treatment by a physician is quite a bit of a ways from the Controlled Substances Act.


Edit: And can we not call him Scalito? It seems to be unneeded snark

Sure, I won't call him Scalito anymore. I like Borklito more anyways.

[Loren]

What does that have to do with the right's hypocrisy when it comes to states' rights, as in this case, or in the case of medicinal marijuana in CA?

Since you mentioned the California medicinal marijuana case, I feel obliged to point out that while the Court upheld the federal ban, Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas all dissented in that opinion. Thomas, especially, wrote a rather strong opinion defending the states' rights view of the issue.

That's why it puzzled me that Thomas dissented in this case too. And after reading his opinion, it turns out that it puzzles him that the rest of the Court switched sides as well. I recommend reading his dissent; it's a lot shorter than Scalia's, and it explains why he defended California in Raich, but took the feds' side in the Oregon case.

In short, it had to do with the Oregon people not making a constitutional argument, and in a footnote, he says that even if they'd made a constitutional argument, the precedent of Raich would defeat it.

[wader0069]

This is crazy, Gays can't get married, but if you move to Oregon your doctor can help kill you.......... :evilangry

Where does Fred Phelps stand on all of this? I know he has something to say, bash the gays..... Isn't suicide a sin too?

[Lubichev]

I doubt Fred Phelps would loose any sleep if gays killed themselves. :(

[wader0069]

I doubt Fred Phelps would loose any sleep if gays killed themselves. :(
I think you misunderstood me, and I agree with you......

but seriously isn't suicide a sin?? I think it is,..I dunoo just shows how ass backwards out goverment really is.

[Tadhg Adams]

This is crazy, Gays can't get married, but if you move to Oregon your doctor can help kill you.......... :evilangry

Where does Fred Phelps stand on all of this? I know he has something to say, bash the gays..... Isn't suicide a sin too?

That was certainly out of left-field.

[StoneGold]

That was certainly out of left-field.
Much like Blair can turn any thread into something about gun control, Wader has the mutant ability to gay up any thread.

[wader0069]

Much like Blair can turn any thread into something about gun control, Wader has the mutant ability to gay up any thread.
Everyone needs a gay mans touch....... ;)

Hence Queer eye for the Straight guy........

[Michael P]

Much like Blair can turn any thread into something about gun control, Wader has the mutant ability to gay up any thread.
I thought that was your mutant power...

[Dizzy D]

I thought that was your mutant power...

No, he has the power to put a thread on the edge of good taste just over it.

[StoneGold]

I thought that was your mutant power...
No, my mutant power is the ability to turn any thread into a wacky eyesore. Nothing specifically gay about any of it though.

[StoneGold]

Also, my power isn't a mutation. I was bitten by a radioactive asshole.

[wader0069]

No, my mutant power is the ability to turn any thread into a wacky eyesore. Nothing specifically gay about any of it though.

What do you think gay is....duh...have you seen Elton John, ....yeah complete eyesore.......good music, but the mans fashion is a mess.... :evilsmile

[Bloopinator]

They should just get cannibals. Cannibals obviously don't get much food and the people want to die, so they kill the people and the cannibals eat them. So the cannibals get food and the people die like they want to. See it's a win, win situation!

[StoneGold]

They should just get cannibles.
There's something incredibly cute about the way you spelled that.

[Bloopinator]

There's something incredibly cute about the way you spelled that.
.....okay...how's it spelled then?

[Dizzy D]

There's something incredibly cute about the way you spelled that.

New Saturday morning cartoon; Hannibal Lecter and the Cannibles. It wouldn't be the first cartoon based on a not-child-safe source

[wader0069]

get cannibles

It's like a fruit, a very very gay fruit...... :evilsmile




How do you spell it???

[StoneGold]

.....okay...how's it spelt then?
http://m-w.com/dictionary/cannibal


And the preferred American spelling of that is spelled, not spelt.

[Bloopinator]

http://m-w.com/dictionary/cannibal


And the preferred American spelling of that is spelled, not spelt.
I changed it cause I'm kewl like that.

[Noah Johnson]

Damn, I'm thrilled to hear this news. I was proud when my state passed that law, and Ashcroft's bullshit attack on it was always clearly illegal. Good work on SCOTUS's part for pointing out that this was just about an administration trying to overturn a law they didn't happen to like, not about drug control.

Don't get me wrong, I do have some reservations about assisted suicide, but I feel that at the end of the day, the right to one's own life includes the right to end that life when you see fit, and this is an important step towards that. We call it the "Death With Dignity" law here, which I think sums it up nicely.

[That JonoGuy]

We call it the "Death With Dignity" law here, which I think sums it up nicely.

As it should be. The other side loves to throw the word "suicide" around to rise people up. If it hadn't been held up i would have been very concerned. Then again we might have learned the US's true stance on torture.

[Alex]

Why do people need help killing themselves?
Can't they run their wheelchair off a bridge?

[StoneGold]

Why do people need help killing themselves?
Can't they run their wheelchair off a bridge?
Actually, probably not. As far as I can tell, this thing only applies to people who are too sick to do even that.


Besides, this is Oregon. They haven't mastered concepts like bridges yet.

[Rob Allen]

Besides, this is Oregon. They haven't mastered concepts like bridges yet.Ahem...

http://www.portlandbridges.com/

http://www.bizave.com/portland/bridges/

http://www.coos-bay.net/bridgesoforegon.html

[StoneGold]

Ahem...

http://www.portlandbridges.com/

http://www.bizave.com/portland/bridges/

http://www.coos-bay.net/bridgesoforegon.html
Pure propaganda.

[wader0069]

Why do people need help killing themselves?
Can't they run their wheelchair off a bridge?

OOOh you just gave a me a great idea, Bungee wheelchair. Extreme disabilities. OMG I am going to be rich......

[Michael P]

Also, my power isn't a mutation. I was bitten by a radioactive asshole.
The one in Cunard's avatar?

[K'Nort]

Why do people need help killing themselves?
Can't they run their wheelchair off a bridge?

We actually had a woman basically run her wheelchair in front of a train a couple weeks ago here in Portland. But the investigation concluded that it was because she was really drunk and thought she could outrun it.

[Dizzy D]

The one in Cunard's avatar?

Anus dentata?


And why do I think that there actually is some theory like that floating around in psychology.

And why do I think that I want to know?