Monday, October 10, 2005

Supreme Court to Hear Assisted Suicide Case

Well, finally, the Bush administration's hypocrisy has led Oregon to the Supreme Court. How he could stand there, with a straight face, so many times and insisted that he agreed with the GOP platform on state's rights and then, as soon as he took office, wage a war with the voters of the state of Oregon?


Supreme Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide Case



WASHINGTON (Oct. 5) - New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives.

The justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has the final say on the life-or-death issue.

It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer.

The outcome is hard to predict, in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who seemed ready to support Oregon's law. Her replacement may be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now.

Roberts repeatedly raised concerns that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules.

"If one state can say it's legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better, or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn't that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?" he asked.

The Supreme Court eight years ago concluded that the dying have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O'Connor provided a key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state experimentation.

The new case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's conservative religious supporters. Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration.

Oregon won a lawsuit in a lower court over its voter-approved law, which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people.

The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided in hearing the Bush administration's appeal.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has had colon cancer, talked about medicines that make a sick person's final moments more comfortable. David Souter, in an emotional moment, said that it's one thing for the government to ban date rape drugs and harmful products but "that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here."

On the other side, Roberts and Antonin Scalia appeared skeptical of Oregon's claims that states have the sole authority to regulate the practice of medicine.

Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. He interrupted Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson in his first minute, then asked more than a dozen more tough questions.

Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose and "it suggests that the attorney general has the authority to interpret that phrase" to declare that assisted suicide is not legitimate. Roberts asked three questions of the Bush administration lawyer, noting that Congress passed one drug law only after "lax state treatment of opium."

"I was wondering if the new chief would hold back and wouldn't ruffle other people's feathers. It appears clear he's not waiting for anything or anyone," said Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke University and a former Supreme Court clerk.

The two justices who seemed most conflicted were Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. Breyer's wife counsels young cancer patients. Besides Ginsburg, the justices who have had cancer are O'Connor and John Paul Stevens.

"For me, the case turns on the statute. And it's a hard case," Kennedy told the Bush administration's lawyer, and later he asked about the "serious consequences" of curbing federal government authority in regulating drugs.

Solicitor General Paul Clement said, "If this court makes clear that state law can overtake the federal regime, I think it at least creates the potential for there to be a lot of holes in the regime."

Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his usual practice, asked no questions. He could be sympathetic to Oregon. He was one of three justices who said in a summer decision that the federal government should not interfere with state medical marijuana laws. The other two were O'Connor and Rehnquist.

If O'Connor is the deciding vote in the case, the court would probably delay the decision and schedule a new argument session after the arrival of the new justice. On Monday Bush named White House lawyer Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor.

Dozens of spectators gathered outside the court, waving signs supporting and opposing the Oregon law. "My Life, My Death, My Choice," read one sign. "Oregon Law Protects Doctors -- Not Patients," said another.

Oregon is the only state with an assisted suicide law, but other states may pass their own if the court rules in the state's favor.

The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

*******************************************************

Well, you know what I think? I think we here in Oregon have already voted on this...TWICE. I think Dubya and his band of Merry Nincompoops should leave Oregonians ALONE. This is a states' rights issue, and the state of Oregon has spoken.
This is not, as the new Chief Justice would have you believe, an issue of regulating addictive drugs. It's not, as Asscroft would have you believe, an issue of Christian morals. It's an issue of medicine, an issue of quality of life and an issue of quality of death. It's an issue best addressed between a patient, his/her doctor, and his/her family. Not the patient, doctor, family...and the attorney general.
This shouldn't be about politics. It should be about human beings having the same basic rights that we afford cats and dogs in this country: to die, without pain, and with some dignity.
I don't know what I am going to do when it's my time. Let's face it, I suffer from some disorders that are often quite brutal in the end. But regardless, I want the CHOICE. And it sickens me that some politician would make it for me, based on how many Conservative Christian votes he needs in the next election.
I beg of you, Justices, to keep the federal government out of Oregon's law. Let the people of Oregon have the choice to die with dignity. We clearly want it that way....

4 Comments:

At 1:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 10:35 AM, Blogger Pixie LaRouge said...

Thanks so much for sending this on. I've kept meaning to look it up, but I keep getting distracted (surprise surprise).

I must say, reading Roberts' comments has me concerned about the way he's going to lead the Supreme Court. It sounds like he's going to try cases rather than law, which is completely against the job description. Not to mention that he's trying to ENFORCE his twisted perception of law, which is also not in the job description. And what's that called again? Oh yeah, "Legislating from the bench." And what did the twit vow not to do? Yup, he's Bush's man through and through.

Pardon me. Don't mean to rant on your rant, so I'll wrap this up quite simply. You're right and he's a nincompoop. ;)

 
At 2:19 AM, Blogger Zen Angel said...

Pixie, feel free to rant here anytime. :)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home