Death With Dignity–Part II

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Will says:

    As one who considers himself a staunch conservative and federalism proponent, I am a bit troubled by the dissenters’ willingness to abandon disciplined federalism principles for closely held moral beliefs. At least this is what looks like to me.

  2. mark says:

    We can debate whether this decision hinges on precedent viz Raisch or a more granular analysis of the CSA. The recognition of “inalienable rights” is fundamental to this nation. It is “self-evident” that no law can be written to prevent someone from

    ending their own life. What the state can do, however, is to coerce the desperate and dying, or worse, a loved-one, into ending their suffering with a bullit to the brain.

  3. SCOTUSblog says:

    Blog Round-Up – Wednesday, January 18th

    In nomination news: Here is Professor Bainbridge with a post on why the Harriet Miers fight was worth it. Here the Washington Post has transcripts of the Alito hearings. Here is Sentencing Law & Policy with a post on the…

  4. Death Watch

    The U.S. Supreme Court has just struck down a federal effort to stop legal assisted suicide in Oregon. Oregonians have twice approved the law for effect in their state, but then-Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to circumvent the law by interpreti…

  5. Chris says:

    I think there is a plausible option 4. Thomas, seeing that the majority was solidly on the side of the state, decided to use the dissent to chastise the other justices on the inconsistency of their ruling.

  6. ReidBlog says:

    Roberts watch

    It remains to be seen whether I was completely suckered by John Roberts’ charm and intelligence during his confirmation hearings. But there are interesting signs…

  7. washerdreyer says:

    Why wouldn’t this proposed option four be as well served by a concurrence?

  8. Chris says:

    Honestly, I don’t know. Perhaps he felt a dissent would have a greater impact?

    It’s speculation on my part and I don’t know the inner workings of the court well enough to even defend the argument.

  9. Counting Justices

    [Jurisprudence] I am reading Gonzales v. Oregon today, like everyone else, and I am reading what people have to say about the decision. I came across a post by Robert Tsai on Concurring Opinions, in which Tsai is counting justices:

    But I have to thin…

  10. Rodgerlodger says:

    don’t see connection with CA medical marijuana case and Oregon….no issue of statutory interpretation in former — issue was Commerce Clause. Latter, no constitutional issue, just what statute meant. Apples and oranges, getting stoned and committing suicide (not the same thing)