PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS and the Right to Die


Judy G. Russell
January 17th, 2006, 11:36 PM
There is, the Supreme Court of the US ruled some years ago, no constitutional right to die. Instead, the Court left the issue of end-of-life concerns to the states within some general borders.

Today, by a 6-3 margin (the new Chief Justice Roberts joining with Scalia and Thomas in dissent), the Court said it meant what it said before and Oregon can allow its citizens to choose to die with dignity and the feds can NOT threaten to strip doctors of their federal drug prescription authority for complying with a patient's legal request under Oregon law.

Of all the issues that have come up in recent years, the inclination of those who claim to be conservatives to interfere with my right to choose how I might want to exit this world if a medical condition became clearly terminal is one that just infuriates me. I am so glad the Court decided that the statutes don't give the feds that power -- but I am worried that the neocons may simply see this decision as an excuse to try to amend the statutes...

It's my life. I really do want government out of my most personal decisions to the maximum extent possible. End of life issues included.

Kudos to six members of the Court.

Lindsey
January 18th, 2006, 12:46 AM
Kudos to six members of the Court.
Amen.

(And then there were five...)

--Lindsey

ndebord
January 18th, 2006, 04:17 PM
There is, the Supreme Court of the US ruled some years ago, no constitutional right to die. Instead, the Court left the issue of end-of-life concerns to the states within some general borders.

Today, by a 6-3 margin (the new Chief Justice Roberts joining with Scalia and Thomas in dissent), the Court said it meant what it said before and Oregon can allow its citizens to choose to die with dignity and the feds can NOT threaten to strip doctors of their federal drug prescription authority for complying with a patient's legal request under Oregon law.

Of all the issues that have come up in recent years, the inclination of those who claim to be conservatives to interfere with my right to choose how I might want to exit this world if a medical condition became clearly terminal is one that just infuriates me. I am so glad the Court decided that the statutes don't give the feds that power -- but I am worried that the neocons may simply see this decision as an excuse to try to amend the statutes...

It's my life. I really do want government out of my most personal decisions to the maximum extent possible. End of life issues included.

Kudos to six members of the Court.


Judy,

Perhaps the new court may focus more on States' rights, an argument that conservatives used to make before they became all-powerful and decided they could increasingly intrude on many aspects of the private lives of Americans. I guess the semi-good news here is that the vote was 6-3. Assuming that Alito would be on the opposite side of this, that still makes for a 5-4 majority for this decision.

Lindsey
January 18th, 2006, 10:47 PM
Perhaps the new court may focus more on States' rights
Hah! Don't hold your breath. Not unless the states' rights position serves ultra-conservative ends.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
January 19th, 2006, 12:12 AM
(And then there were five...)Soon. But not yet, thank heavens.

Judy G. Russell
January 19th, 2006, 12:14 AM
Perhaps the new court may focus more on States' rights, an argument that conservatives used to make before they became all-powerful and decided they could increasingly intrude on many aspects of the private lives of Americans. I guess the semi-good news here is that the vote was 6-3. Assuming that Alito would be on the opposite side of this, that still makes for a 5-4 majority for this decision.There is a big difference between a conservative (who would clearly argue in favor of keeping government as far as possible from the intimately personal decisions of the people) and the Republican Party of today, I'm afraid. And whatever else can be said of today's GOP, I don't think "conservative" is among the words that can be used. Huge government deficits. Foreign wars without proof of cause. Injecting government at every turn into people's private lives. An Imperial Presidency. Nope, conservative they are NOT.

ndebord
January 19th, 2006, 02:12 AM
There is a big difference between a conservative (who would clearly argue in favor of keeping government as far as possible from the intimately personal decisions of the people) and the Republican Party of today, I'm afraid. And whatever else can be said of today's GOP, I don't think "conservative" is among the words that can be used. Huge government deficits. Foreign wars without proof of cause. Injecting government at every turn into people's private lives. An Imperial Presidency. Nope, conservative they are NOT.

Judy,

Perhaps imperial presidency is not the appropriate term...maybe it should be theocratic presidency.

MollyM/CA
January 19th, 2006, 10:29 AM
Judy,

Perhaps imperial presidency is not the appropriate term...maybe it should be theocratic presidency.

Good, Nick. How about Imperial Theocracy?

Judy G. Russell
January 19th, 2006, 12:36 PM
Imperial theocratic Presidency?

Lindsey
January 19th, 2006, 05:39 PM
There is a big difference between a conservative (who would clearly argue in favor of keeping government as far as possible from the intimately personal decisions of the people) and the Republican Party of today, I'm afraid.
Amen, and amen. The Republican Party today is being led by radicals, not conservatives. I'd say "radical religious zealots," except that I'm not convinced that people like Grover Norquist are actually religious. Pious, yes. Religious, no.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
January 19th, 2006, 06:19 PM
Pious, yes. Religious, no.Lunatic fringe, yes...

ndebord
January 19th, 2006, 08:34 PM
Good, Nick. How about Imperial Theocracy?

Molly,

Only if you wish to erase entirely from history the "legacy" term Presidency.

;-)

ndebord
January 19th, 2006, 08:36 PM
Lunatic fringe, yes...


Judy,

I would think that the phrase lunatic fringe, in Republican Party speak, would be the 5 or 6 moderate Republicans still left in the fold!

;-)

Dan in Saint Louis
January 19th, 2006, 10:00 PM
the phrase lunatic fringe
The problem is that the lunatics are no longer on the fringe.

Judy G. Russell
January 19th, 2006, 10:36 PM
I wish I didn't think you were right...

Judy G. Russell
January 19th, 2006, 10:36 PM
We have met the enemy and... YIKES!!!!!

Lindsey
January 19th, 2006, 11:50 PM
Lunatic fringe, yes...
That, too! Well, maybe. Or perhaps just extremely cynical.

--Lindsey

ndebord
January 20th, 2006, 01:15 AM
I wish I didn't think you were right...

Judy,

Amen to that, ah, er, oh well.