Yeah for me. I called it (I guess). The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) in a 6-3 decision. Roberts, Thomas and Scalia dissented. (I called that, too).
Like I anticipated in my previous post on this topic on the day of oral argument, the majority distinguished this case from Gonzalez v. Raich, in which the Court rejected the state of California's argument in support of its medical marijuana law.
And although in my previous post I thought the Court might skirt the issue by simply saying the Attorney General has the authority to interpret his own rule (which is basically the dissent's position), the Court hit that subject head on and said the AG overstepped his authority.
It's an important decision because it, theoretically, removes at least overt politics from the office of the Attorney General, who is supposed to be above that.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It is a great victory. I saw a woman on the news tonight who opposes it. She was in an accident when she was younger, and is always in a lot of pain from it. She said she'd never consider doing it herself, which prompted me to yell at the TV, "well, that's your choice, isn't it." Then she went on some rant about how this will lead to mercy killings, so I turned the channel.
It really peeves me that people think that the DWDA is available for people who are in terrible pain or facing the prospect of a long, miserable existence due to some illness or injury.
Unless you have six months or less to live, you don't even get to square one in the process. God I hate these people.
And you're dead on (hah) that the stupid woman didn't grasp that, here at least, the choice would be hers to make, not Big Brother's.
The one comment I constant hear from folks who have taken advantage of this law is that it gives them "peace of mind." These people have six months to live, for God's Sake. I say giving them some peace of mind is the least we could do for them.
Post a Comment