Comments on: Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law Upheld

By: randomliberal/Robert

randomliberal/Robert — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 06:53:12 +0000

Andrew, I think that we can safely assume that Jill was being more than a little facetious there. Scalia likes to pretend he’s an originalist.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:49:30 +0000

And we should point to the fact that our own Scalia, Mr. Originalist himself

How exactly is Scalia an originalist? He thinks that “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several states” means Congress can prohibit people from growing marijuana in their backyards, which is definitely not an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

By: Darleen

Darleen — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:29:17 +0000

As someone with family members that have died of Cystic Fibrosis, a sister with scleroderma and a sister-in-law who is developmentally challenged I implore you, PLEASE do not equate the imposed killing of Terri Schaivo with any “right to die” case.

Argue, if you will, people having the right to put their wishes in writing and to seek to manage their own death. THAT is what the Oregon case is about.

It is not about declaring people who have not left such wishes as non-humans who need to be “put down”.

By: randomliberal/Robert

randomliberal/Robert — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 04:50:14 +0000

Yes, which is why I wrote that. Good grief.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:55:21 +0000

I imagine this will fan the anger of those on the far right who want to strip the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction…

Nah. I haven’t looked at it closely, but on first glance this is a federalism case, correctly decided – the state gets to set its own law in these matters.

In fairness to Thomas (dear god, I can’t believe I wrote that)

If you have intellectual integrity, aren’t you fair to everyone?

By: randomliberal/Robert

randomliberal/Robert — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:50:09 +0000

In fairness to Thomas (dear god, I can't believe I wrote that), according to the AP article Thomas did actually write his own opinion in this case.

By: Harrison

Harrison — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:40:15 +0000

I imagine this will fan the anger of those on the far right who want to strip the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over certain types of cases. (Jill–Have I phrased that right? Does one “strip” jurisdiction?)

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:23:18 +0000

I am shocked… SHOCKED that Roberts voted with Scalia and Tomas.

And he prides himself on having a consistent judical philosophy based in originalism?

IOKIYAR… and they can flip flop ideas whenever they please as well.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 02:34:33 +0000

And what do you know, with Alito instead of O'Connor that's a 5-4 vote instead of 6-3... and then if they get one more, that goes 5-4 the other way and the AG can strike down Oregon's law for no good reason. Yikes! (Or at least, I think there's no good reason for the federal government (or any government) to telling people that they don't have the right to end their lives.)

By: a nut

a nut — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 02:19:54 +0000

My PoliSci prof said Thomas doesn’t write any opinions because, next to Scalia, he sucks.