http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/1...index.html<
>
<
>
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas dissented. Roberts showing his true colors. More interestingly, I wonder what this decision will do to the medicinal marijuana fight? Anyone know of a medicinal MJ case in the federal courts? <i></i>

Quote:Roberts showing his true colors.<
>
<
>
You don't think the reason they have 9 justices is because people might actually *gulp* disagree on some things and they are trying for a majority, do you? <i></i>

Quote:"I think it's important not to have too narrow a view of protecting personal rights. The right that was protected in the assisted-suicide case was the right of the people through their legislatures to articulate their own views on the policies that should apply in those cases of terminating life, and not to have the court interfering in those policy decisions. That's an important right." Roberts, 1997. Looks like somebodies mind has changed since BushCo took over. But anyway, I'd rather talk about weed. <i></i>

OMG Bush is evil! <i></i>

_________________
"It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional."
-A. Scalia

Yeah Ray, but that wasn't the issue before the Court. The issue wasn't whether or not assisted suicide is a good thing, or whether or not people should have that right. <
>
<
>
It was about the clash between state and federal law. State law says okay, federal law says, no way. So the feds were able to go after doctors writing prescriptions for lethal doses under specific federal laws.<
>
<
>
Of course you have Scalia writing the dissent (I really wish Roberts had, I'd have loved to have seen it) , and OF COURSE he throws in shit about how prescribing medicine for death shouldn't even come close to the legally defined parameters blah blah blah...because Scalia is against the concept of euthenasia or anything that appears like it.<
>
<
>
But while the issue involved legally assisted suicide, the points of law are pretty seperate from that. Though comments will be and were made on the issue.<
>
<
>
Interestingly enough given this precedent, the feds should to be told to butt the fuck out on medicinal marijuana too, for the same damn reasons. It won't happen, but it should.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Tarot, you miss the point. Roberts said then the court should not alter a state's legislatures decision to allow assisted suicide. And now he is on a court and attempting to alter a state legislature's decision. Hypocrisy. I wonder why he had an about-face? How does something go from an "important right" to a dissent on the exact same issue?<
>
<
>
As far as weed goes, if a lawsuit got up that far (and I have to imagine it will eventually), I think this shows that it could end up with the same happy fate. By that time we'll have Scalito though, so Kennedy would be an all-important vote. <i></i>

Quote:Tarot, you miss the point. Roberts said then the court should not alter a state's legislatures decision to allow assisted suicide. And now he is on a court and attempting to alter a state legislature's decision. Hypocrisy. I wonder why he had an about-face? How does something go from an "important right" to a dissent on the exact same issue?<
>
Senator Durbin can explain to you how one can change his mind. It's not like he said it yesterday, it was 9 years ago. <i></i>

Quote:Tarot, you miss the point. Roberts said then the court should not alter a state's legislatures decision to allow assisted suicide. And now he is on a court and attempting to alter a state legislature's decision. Hypocrisy. I wonder why he had an about-face? How does something go from an "important right" to a dissent on the exact same issue?<
>
<
>
No, I didn't miss it. They're not altering it. The question is not whether or not the state's decision should be upheld. If that were the question and he decided it should not, then absolutely I'd be not only on the bandwagon, I'd be honking the horn.<
>
<
>
The question is whether existing federal law trumps that state decision. There is existing federal law which can be applied in a manner which prohibts doctors from prescribing lethal doses of medication for the express purpose of them being lethal. (There are also laws regarding lethal doses of medication and how much of certain medications can be legally prescribed at any given time, such as narcotics regulations).<
>
<
>
Now, the application of that federal law goes against the decision of the state. So the question before the court is essentially: Does this federal law stand above a decision made by the state?<
>
<
>
And it's a question that's been asked before (in lower courts) specifically regarding medicinal marijuana. Because federal authorities have continually disrupted state medicinal marijuana programs with federal laws. Including prosecution of doctors prescribing it, and revokation of their ability to prescribe medication on a federal level. <
>
<
>
But back to the issue at hand. Roberts decision has nothing to do with his previously held position of the rights of the state legislature. He isn't asked if the state has the right to make this decision (they do). He isn't asked if it's constitutional for the state to make such a decision. <
>
<
>
The question is, whether current federal law stands above it. And his position was, 'Yes, it does'. As was (no surprise) Scalia and Thomas. <
>
<
>
That Roberts believes that federal government > state government isn't a surprise, or shock. I knew that was his position prior to being on the court, so I'm pretty sure it had to be transparent to others.<
>
<
>
Quote:As far as weed goes, if a lawsuit got up that far (and I have to imagine it will eventually), I think this shows that it could end up with the same happy fate. By that time we'll have Scalito though, so Kennedy would be an all-important vote.<
>
<
>
Yes, hopefully. Though the federal laws involved are FAR more specific, so it's not quite a linear case. But it is very similar and I think demonstrates that there's potential for the state government via 'will of the people' to allow it will stand above federal laws against it. And IIRC there is a case that's headed to the Supreme Court over it from CA. But I haven't looked at it lately, I think 9th district shit on it, so it's heading there in the next couple of years. <
>
<
>
It will ultimately end up there though, because more states are recognizing the value of it, and are legalizing it for medical purposes. I'd like to see it simply decriminalized and be done with the issue frankly. But that's another issue altogether.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:The question is not whether or not the state's decision should be upheld.If federal law was allowed to trump state law then you would not be upholding the state law. If federal law trumped state law then Oregon's assisted suicide law would be null and void, for all intents and purposes. Hence the point. <i></i>

Could we go one thread without referring to someone's "hypocrisy?" Upholding the state's rights was his job then, and upholding the nation's rights is his job now. Whether or not the job he's doing now is worth a shit is an entirely different discussion. You're telling me you've never compromised anything because of your job? Hypocrisy. <i></i>

Then he was in private practice, so no, his job was not to protect state rights. <i></i>

Does the point not remain? <i></i>

Not really. <i></i>

Quote:If federal law was allowed to trump state law then you would not be upholding the state law. If federal law trumped state law then Oregon's assisted suicide law would be null and void, for all intents and purposes. Hence the point.<
>
<
>
Okay look, whether we ultimately end up agreeing or not, here's the point.<
>
<
>
Upholding state law means, when there is a challenge to state law...he will side with what the voters have chosen, versus legislating from the bench. <
>
<
>
That is not the issue here. This is not Joe Blow versus State Law.<
>
<
>
This is federal law versus state law. And when those two clash, as does happen, he has sided with federal law. This is not a surprise, as I stated previously it was crystal fucking clear to me before he was confirmed that that was where he solidly stood. When all other things are basically equal (legally, not socially), then federal > state law. <
>
<
>
Now, if he flips around in a situation where (once again) all other things being equal it comes down to an issue of whether federal laws should trump state laws on another social issue and he sides with the state (due to personal beliefs/bias, whatever...due to the issue and not the law) THEN you can scream hypocrisy.<
>
<
>
Otherwise, all social implications on this issue aside (and I have strong opinions on it, as do most people I think), it's purely a matter of the law, not whether or not assisted suicide, or any form of euthenasia is a good thing.<
>
<
>
The elements of the assisted suicide law are discussed by Scalia in the dissent, because it directly relates to the federal laws, namely that they're prescribing medication with the intention of it causing fatality. I'll also wager Scalia slide in a few personal opinions there too, because I think we all know his opinion on that issue.<
>
<
>
Federal law says it's illegal, and can be prosecuted on a federal level. State law (in Oregon) specifically allows for it. So you have a big fucking problem. Fortunately the majority opinion is that the state laws which are specific to this issue (the voters specifically have decided that they wish for this act, it's not a situation of a grey area of law being used or something) then the will of the people of the state decision, that law trumps federal law.<
>
<
>
As it should be, IMO. But it seems today many Republicans forget that one of the platform issues of the party is state rights over federal govt. *sigh*<
>
<
>
Anyway whether or not you personally agree, or feel Roberts is additionally guided by some bias here, I don't see his previous statement in any way in conflict with his decision. Even though I personally do not agree with his position.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Regardless, let's hope this ruling ends up encouraging other states to develop their own laws to allow people this freedom. I have to wonder whether anyone against suicide or assisted suicide has actually been around someone in constant deep physical pain. <i></i>

Well another ironic thing, most people who've asked for the prescription...haven't used it. They've made a choice to die naturally. But simply having that choice, can be a tremendous comfort.<
>
<
>
And with Oregon's law, you must have a terminal illness which is expected to be terminal in (iirc) 6 months. So it is not intended for people with chronic pain conditions, incurable conditions which are not fatal, or people with clinical or situational suicidal depression.<
>
<
>
I'd personally be for a program which allows it for chronic medical conditions, as long as it required a process which examined (at multiple levels) all available options and reasonable alternatives for improving the person's situation. I don't think I'm in the majority there though.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:And with Oregon's law, you must have a terminal illness which is expected to be terminal in (iirc) 6 months. So it is not intended for people with chronic pain conditions, incurable conditions which are not fatal, or people with clinical or situational suicidal depression.<
>
<
>
Still could be a situation where the person is in chronic pain and has less than 6 months to live. <
>
<
>
I agree with your latter statement about having a law that would be more encompassing though. This Oregon law, from what I've heard, has a lot of paperwork and conditions that must be met before you can go through with it - and I think that's a great start. If we could make it allowable for people with chronic medical conditions while maintaining this type of intense scrutiny, that would be great. <i></i>

I find it weird that basically the same justices that voted for states rights in this case voted against states' rights in the medical marijuana case, and vice versa. To this lay person, the same basic legal principles seem to be in question. <i></i>

My question to this decision is this. In order to prescribe narcotics a physcian must possess a DEA license which is controlled by the Federal government. What is going to happen the first time the DEA decides to revoke the license of an Oregon doctor for prescribing a fatal does? Your state medical license does not allow for the prescribing of opiates.<
>
<
>
So does anyone think this is really settled? I am sure at some point a doctor will have their Federal license revoked by the DEA for prescribing to assist in suicide and this will end up squarely in the hands of SCOTUS once again. <i></i>

The line between state and federal powers have always been and will always be a large portion of the issues in front of the court. I would also wager that the issues of executive power will appear in the court more often over the next couple years, but thats another topic. <i></i>

_________________
"Be glad there was a keyboard, monitor and miles of fiber between us when you typed that."

"State that opinion in my presence, you fucktard, and I'll show you how valid it is when I'm kicking the shit out of you."

Quote:My question to this decision is this. In order to prescribe narcotics a physcian must possess a DEA license which is controlled by the Federal government. What is going to happen the first time the DEA decides to revoke the license of an Oregon doctor for prescribing a fatal does? Your state medical license does not allow for the prescribing of opiates.<
>
<
>
Probably the same thing that happens to doctors medically prescribing marijuana who have been revoked. The DEA will hit a few in the hopes of scaring the rest. And those cases will slowly wind their way through the courts. <
>
<
>
I forsee one of two outcomes. Either a strong leash gets put on the federal agencies who can circumvent state laws in this manner, or they'll lose their power and it will go to a state board to be overseen.<
>
<
>
Of course, there's also the issue of the federal government seeking more power over state agencies. There's been proposals to shift many state agencies under a wide 'homeland security' banner. And that would allow federal authority over those agencies in many instances.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Hey Tarot,<
>
<
>
I don't know if you follow these or had come across them. I wanted to share them with you in light of your interest in the Judiciary.<
>
<
>
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/a ... th_14.html<
>
<
>
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archi ... e_new.html <i></i>

_________________
"Be glad there was a keyboard, monitor and miles of fiber between us when you typed that."

"State that opinion in my presence, you fucktard, and I'll show you how valid it is when I'm kicking the shit out of you."