In the first headliner kind of case decided by the court, it's interesting to see Roberts joining with Scalia and Thomas in much the same way that Rehnquist would have.

 

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law

 

By GINA HOLLAND

The Associated Press

Tuesday, January 17, 2006; 2:08 PM

 

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

 

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that a federal drug law does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time.

 

The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to punish Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court majority said.

 

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

 

Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter after O'Connor's departure. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins the liberal wing of the court in cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment.

 

The ruling was a reprimand to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in 2001 said that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" and that Oregon physicians would be punished for helping people die under the law.

 

Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

 

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

 

"If the term `legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.

 

Scalia said the court's ruling "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position."

 

Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people _ those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind, and after at least two doctors agree they have six months or less to live.

 

"For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions," state Solicitor General Mary Williams said.

 

The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."

 

Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

 

The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws _ only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it could still have ramifications outside of Oregon.

 

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the Justice Department had immediately begun a review of what the impact might be. "We are disappointed at the decision," he said. "The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life, a culture of life that is built on valuing life at all stages."

 

"This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration.

 

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and a supporter of the law, said the ruling "has stopped, for now, the administration's attempts to wrest control of decisions rightfully left to the states and individuals."

 

Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately.

 

Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice.

 

Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court.

 

The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

 

___

 

On the Net:

 

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

 

Link to ruling: http://wid.ap.org/scotus/results_recent.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6011700698.html

High court upholds Oregon assisted-suicide law

 

6-3 majority says state powers trump federal rules; Roberts' first dissent

 

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

 

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people trumped federal authority to regulate doctors. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting with the majority for the first time.

 

That means the administration improperly tried to use a federal drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed to do that in 2001, saying that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose."

 

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

 

Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter after O'Connor's departure. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins the liberal wing of the court in cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment.

 

Ashcroft 'beyond his expertise'

 

 

The ruling was a reprimand to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in 2001 said that doctor-assisted suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose" and that Oregon physicians would be punished for helping people die under the law.

 

Kennedy said the "authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design."

 

The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's "unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide."

 

Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

 

 

 

Scalia's dissenting view

Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

 

Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

 

"If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," he wrote.

 

Scalia said the court's ruling "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position."

 

Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people ? those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind.

 

Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, complaining that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately.

 

Reaction from sidelines

The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws ? only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it could still have ramifications outside of Oregon.

 

"This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted-suicide laws," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration.

 

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a supporter of the law, said the ruling "has stopped, for now, the administration's attempts to wrest control of decisions rightfully left to the states and individuals."

 

Background to the issue

Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice.

 

Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court.

 

The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10891536/

I think the requirements for assisted suicide are strict enough for the law to be upheld.

 

If you're definatly going to die, and are in immense suffering, I don't see how the government can force you to live.

I don't see how the government can force you to live.

 

They certainly tried really hard to make someone live last year....

Supreme Court Of The America? Sorry, just found that strange.

If the person wants to die, it's their right. But that wasn't really the point here, I think the Feds tried to usurp the Tenth Ammendment and they got shot down. We'll see if Roberts stays on the side of the Feds in most cases or if he sides more for state's rights down the line.

In the first headliner kind of case decided by the court, it's interesting to see Roberts joining with Scalia and Thomas in much the same way that Rehnquist would have.

 

 

Interesting as in surprising??

 

 

 

 

(merged topics, btw)

Supreme Court Of The America? Sorry, just found that strange.

 

yeah, f_m is the only person i've ever seen use 'SCOTA.'

 

i've been trying to figure out for the longest time what, besides 'america,' that A could stand for.

Kennedy is the new swing vote. He's a very reasonable justice. Definitely has been leaning more to the center in the last 4-5 years. And, I have to say, that he (or his clerks) is the best writer on the Court. He's so damn clear, concise, and logical (even if I disagree with him sometimes).

Nice to see they got this one right. In my view it's just as absurd to force people to suffer.

I would like to see a summary of the case from a legal periodical. I am not sure what exactly the six justices based their opinion on. It sounds as if they believe the authority desired by the federal government is not consistent with the statute. It was a question of statutotry interpretation. The statute itself was apparently not struck down. We don't know if the Court believes that a federal statute banning physician-assisted suicide would be unconstitutional.

Scota was the daughter of Pharaoh Neferhotep I of Egypt

Supreme Court Of The America? Sorry, just found that strange.

 

yeah, f_m is the only person i've ever seen use 'SCOTA.'

 

i've been trying to figure out for the longest time what, besides 'america,' that A could stand for.

 

Yeah its by force of habit. During my administrative law class it just got annoying to write scotus and potus. So I went with scota and it just flowed better. My mistake.