Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. Get used to seeing those three names together with Alito.
Posted by rlp at January 17, 2006 07:40 AMHey, what a surprise---Roberts is with the far right extremists!
Who'd have thunk that would happen?
Looks like he'a real objective analyst of federalism and "states rights" if he can't see a way to upholding Oregon's assisted suicide law.
He's a biased partisan judge, as we said all along.
We're doomed, gang.
Posted by euzoius at January 17, 2006 07:46 AMR oberts
A lito
T homas
S calia
In case anyone was looking for an acronym.
Posted by ann at January 17, 2006 08:01 AMOuch. That hurt.
Ann, that's brilliant. I've got to share that one with the world. Hope you like admirers, bright shining lights, and zillions of emails.
Well, a couple of fawning emails and maybe 5 minutes of headline space on kos.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 17, 2006 08:28 AMRoberts indicated he would rule against this in his hearings...so he's been good to his word so far.
We'll see how good to his word he is when Roe comes up. I'm not expecting he will be so true when that sucker comes around.
Prove me wrong, John-O.
BTW, I'm glad I opposed his confirmation. State's rights, bitches!
Posted by God Of War at January 17, 2006 08:32 AMThe good thing is that it was 6-3, so even if Alito were on the court, it still would have been upheld Kennedy is the new swing vote. Let's just hope that Stevens and Ginsburg can hold on until Jan. 2009
Posted by Edward Copeland at January 17, 2006 08:42 AMActually, Roberts told Senator Wyden that he would NOT overturn it. Not in so many words, but it appears that he misled the Senator. See BlueOregon.com for details.
Posted by Kari Chisholm at January 17, 2006 08:47 AM
R oberts
A lito
T homas
S calia
In case anyone was looking for an acronym.
Posted by ann at January 17, 2006 08:01 AM
I love it, Ann!
I am very happy about this. Euthenasia rights are extremely important and I am saddened that so many do not realize this.
I am still angered that the anti-abortion people are the same people who oppose allowing death with dignity.
Especially when all that is juxtaposed with the attitude of who gives a shit about any of these people when they are alive? No child care, no Medicaid, no Medicare, no school lunches, no child support, no help with meds, ad infinitim.
Then you add the 'rights' that are claimed when it comes to torturing people to death.
Who the F*** made them gods?
Posted by Anjha at January 17, 2006 09:21 AMSo is the following comment in today's Gonzales v. Oregon ruling on assisted suicide evidence that Justice Scalia is in fact the funniest justice in the Supreme Court?
Since the Regulation does not run afowl (so to speak) of the Court’s newly invented prohibition of “parroting”...
The "Scalia is funniest" study is here (in PDF format); the NYT coverage is here.
Oh Ann, that was great! Thanks.
Posted by Judith at January 17, 2006 09:56 AMSomething which I may be incorrect about - but why the hell can't I find today's slip opinion at the SCOTUS web page (www.supremecourtus.gov)? Why can I only find the PDF copies from the AP?
AP links:
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/04-623p.zd1.pdf - Thomas
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/04-623p.zd.pdf - Scalia
http://scotus.ap.org/scotus/04-623p.zo.pdf - Opinion
This is a bit technical, but the issue is NOT whether Oregon's assisted suicide law was permissible. The issue was whether the Justice Department could preempt the Oregon law by issuing its own interpretation of "legitimate medical practice" under the Controlled Substances Act. The Court basically found that the Attorney General could not do so absent a more explicit congressional delegation of authority.
What this means is that if the Congress were to pass a bill stating that assisted suicide was not legitimate—similar to what it did with medical marijuana—or delegating the authority to determine legitimacy to the Attorney General, the Court most likely would find that the Oregon law was preempted.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 17, 2006 10:37 AMOh, so Roberts misled Wyden, quite a surprise there.
Enjoy these last precious victories for progressive policies in America while they last, because the RATS (ann is a genius) will mercilessly much rule against all such progressive state or federal laws for the next generation.
I think this unmasking of Roberts as an enthusiastic member the RATS is the last chance to focus the Denocrat's minds on this irreversible Alito decision.
The Judiciary Dems inconceivable fumbling, inattention and general ineffectiveness is going to have profound consequences----it's not "oh well, just another little issue we were out maneuvered on."
This was like going out binge drinking the night before the big test. Except we're the ones who will get the "F".
Posted by euzoius at January 17, 2006 11:24 AMCrap, I can't link to the decisions. Anyone else having a problem?
Posted by CG at January 17, 2006 11:41 AMthe rats ...i like it
Posted by dennis at January 17, 2006 12:12 PMWell how soon will it be that the abortion issue will be sent back to the states as a state matter and not a national matter. So nice to see y'all hearalding this decision. State's rights are a Republican mantra. All this decision did was highlight state's rights. Welcome over to our side. We welcome you with open arms.
Posted by peter at January 17, 2006 12:48 PMGet the aforementioned SCOTUS opinions PDF files here.
Posted by pessimist at January 17, 2006 12:54 PMWell how soon will it be that the abortion issue will be sent back to the states as a state matter and not a national matter.
Well that would just expose the RATS as the unpricipled hypocrites that they are.
Your states-righters voted against states rights! How would they explain their flip flop?
Posted by at January 17, 2006 01:16 PMOkay, DJ, now tell us why the Court chose to hear the case if it was decided on wether an Excutive branch cabinet agency could preempt a State law. Because the summary kinda strikes me as a no-brainer, and I'm sure the justices (or their clerks) would have seen it when they reviewed the case prior to acceptance.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 17, 2006 01:36 PMWell how soon will it be that the abortion issue will be sent back to the states as a state matter and not a national matter. So nice to see y'all hearalding this decision. State's rights are a Republican mantra. All this decision did was highlight state's rights.
Actually, no. Unlike Raich, this decision dealt with states' rights relatively peripherally.
The real action dealt with Court deference to administrative agencies (in this case, the Justice Department) when those agencies interpret congressional enactments (in this case, the Controlled Substances Act). The only part where the states' rights issue comes in is whether the Attorney General's (faulty) interpretation of his authority under the CSA could preempt Oregon medical regulations. The Court determined that it could not.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 17, 2006 01:36 PMPeter, if federal deference to a state's legal regime (i.e. its "rights") is such a conservative legal position, how is it that the three most "conservative" justices voted to scrap the Oregon statute? Why didn't they respect Oregon's rights?
Posted by euzoius at January 17, 2006 01:52 PMidio is skeptical: Okay, DJ, now tell us why the Court chose to hear the case if it was decided on wether an Excutive branch cabinet agency could preempt a State law.
The case had important implications for Oregon law; the Court pretty much had to hear it. And here's the general outline:
- In general, federal law trumps state law where they conflict
- The law in question (the Controlled Substances Act) states that it is NOT intended to preempt state law unless the two conflict directly (there are cases where federal law occupies an entire area, displacing state law entirely; the CSA is emphatically NOT such a law)
- So, if the law permits "medically legitimate" prescriptions only, can the Attorney General unilaterally determine what's legitimate, thereby preempting Oregon's determination, even if the statute doesn't delegate that authority explicitly? (the answer is "no")
They deprived the Attorney General of his asserted power to preempt Oregon law in this instance. But they did it by working through canons of statutory interpretation, not constitutional states' rights issues. As I said earlier, if the CSA had delegated the authority to determine medical necessity to the AG, chances are very good this case comes down the other way.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 17, 2006 01:56 PMOkay, that now makes better sense to me, a historian that works for lawyers.
When a ruling pushes that 'state's rights' button, historians get all spastic and see a clear heirarchy of powers telling us where a ruling should fit in the grand scheme. And a cabinet executive, or even the Exceutive, making interpetations of law to overrule a state opinion that been tested repeatedly, gets us all in a twist. That way lies the graves of a million civil war dead!
But you're right, if you live in Oregon & you're going to come down with something lingering or non-terminally wasting, you'd best do it in the next year before Congress gets its act together and 'fixes' the CSA so you can't die gracefully.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 17, 2006 02:32 PMDamn formatting got stripped out. I had this whole gravelly voice and funky type and eerie tone thing going with the civil war dead line. Oh well.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 17, 2006 02:35 PMDamn formatting got stripped out.
Trying to do phony HTML? Read the source to this page for the trick:
<gravelly>That way lies the graves of a million civil war dead!</gravelly>
Posted by dj moonbat at January 17, 2006 02:44 PMI just lost a lengthy post on how this case can also be seen as a dubious overreaching of executive power by a socially reactionary president against a progressive state law, so this will be much shorter.
Kennedy wrote in his opinion that "the Attorney General claims extraordinary authority" to interpret "legitimate medical use" under the federal statute, which would result in a "radical shift of authority from the states to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality."
The very first chance he had, Roberts voted with the RATS to uphold an extremely questionable exercise of executive power. This is a terrible, terrible sign, as this case was not a difficult one, and there was no need for the court to take it at all (the Ninth Circuit had upheld the Oregon's law, I believe).
It should also be noted that Roberts legal position just happens to comport with his own personal religious views on the issue of assisted suicide. Another very bad sign, given that this was an easy case, legally speaking.
If this doesn't give the Dems pause about executive power and Alito, nothing will.
Posted by euzoius at January 17, 2006 02:58 PM
there is a pact between him and Bushies. He supports the administration on Iraq and refrains from criticism and he will get the Rove machine behind him in the 2008 election.
There may indeed be a pact between McCain and Bu$hco, but it won't get him elected president. Backstabbing is just another dirty trick for Rove, who after all is the one that very phraise is attributed to. No, the machine will pick one of its own. Jeb Bush or George Allen will be the nominee, they'll dirty trick McCain again.
In any case, he will get elected precisely because the Rove company knows how to run a campaign. The Democrats do not.
That doesn't have to happen if the Dem. nominee looks beyond the beltway for campaign management. If you think that your beat before you even start, you are.
Posted by rlp at January 17, 2006 03:26 PMDJ, you're such a show-off. Like I'll remember that . . I barely remember what day of the week it is.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 17, 2006 03:48 PMlooking for an acronym.Posted by annThat is so cool that I added it to my AutoCorrect. It will come in handy in the future. Unfortunately. Posted by Mike at January 17, 2006 09:09 PM
Mike: "Unfortunately" is so true. Had a rat run up my pantleg once, but knowing the supreme court is lousy with them is even more scary. No exterminator can remove these 4.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 18, 2006 11:09 AM