Newly confirmed US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts begins his tenure today with one of the most controversial issues of the day: the right to die with dignity as determined by individual states. During his confirmation hearings, he posited himself as a person who had the skill necessary to sway the court from closely decided decisions in order to reach a clear consensus. This will be his first test. We will also have the opportunity to discover if he is, indeed, a justice who refuses to be a right-wing activist. The stakes in this case are enormous.
Here’s some background courtesy of the Christian Science Monitor:
WASHINGTON – Oregon is the only state in the nation where an individual diagnosed as terminally ill can ask a physician to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs.
Since 1997, when the Oregon Death With Dignity Act took effect, more than 200 individuals have requested medical help to end their lives.
Supporters of the law call the process physician-assisted death. Opponents, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft, view it as state- sanctioned killing, and say it is incompatible with a physician’s role as healer.
Wednesday, after four years of litigation, the issue arrives at the US Supreme Court where the justices must decide whether Mr. Ashcroft’s efforts to undermine the Oregon law were a valid exercise of federal power.
At issue is a clash between the power of the federal government to reinterpret and enforce the nation’s drug laws versus the power of the states to regulate the practice of medicine in ways supported by elected state officials and twice approved by Oregon voters.
[PLEASE WELCOME CATNIP as a new front-pager! She’ll do a fabulous job, and we are so honored that she agreed to take this on. She’ll also cover for BooMan on Sundays since the Boo has wanted a day off for a long time. — I didn’t want to post this welcome at the top because I didn’t want to spoil Catnip’s first story being picked up by the RSS FEED ! — Susan (susanhu)]
more…
Bloomberg News notes the divide:
Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled a split over a Bush administration bid to block Oregon’s doctor- assisted suicide law, opening the possibility that new high court nominee Harriet Miers ultimately may cast the deciding vote.
In a one-hour argument in Washington today, Sandra Day O’Connor was one of several justices who questioned whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales could use the U.S. Controlled Substances Act to bar doctors from prescribing lethal doses of drugs to terminally ill patients, as the Oregon law allows.
“The practice of medicine by physicians is an area of traditional regulation by the states, is it not?” O’Connor asked U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement.
…
New Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. directed most of his questions to Oregon Assistant Attorney General Robert M. Atkinson, who represents the state. Roberts signaled skepticism when Atkinson said the federal government couldn’t stop states from authorizing doctors to distribute morphine for medical use or steroids for bodybuilding.“Doesn’t that undermine the uniformity of federal law and make enforcement impossible?” Roberts asked.
…
Justice David Souter said Clement’s argument would make the attorney general the “sole authority to determine whether any state may or may not authorize assisted suicide and would do so in a way that any other attorney general can flip back and forth.” Souter called that a “bizarre result.”…
Justice Stephen Breyer told Clement that the argument against the government’s case is that the Controlled Substances Act “has nothing to do with assisted suicide.”Breyer later prodded Atkinson, without success, to draw a distinction that would allow the federal government to fight abuse of morphine and other addictive drugs but not to second-guess states that want to let doctors facilitate suicide.
…
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote on social issues, called the dispute “a hard case” and directed questions to both sides.
Conservatives definitely face a conundrum with this case: not only is this about the viability and scope of states’ rights, if it is determined that the US Attorney General actually has the sole authority to interpret the law, that person places themselves above the decisions of the people, their elected officials and the courts.
Ashcroft supporters in this case would prefer that the discussion be about the moral issues but this is clearly a case to be decided on the legalities no matter what one’s opinion of physician-assisted suicide may be. The decision of the US Supreme Court in this matter will have far-reaching consequences beyond the issue of the right to die with dignity.
Background:
The Oregon Death With Dignity Act
The Ashcroft Directive on the Controlled Substances Act
Oregon v Ashcroft decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
US Controlled Substances Act
As I told both of you, it’s an honour and I’m humbled. Now, where’s my cheesecake?
In the freezer dessert section at Safeway (hey, their brand of cheesecake isn’t bad, and it’s really good when it’s still frozen).
How about a kiss from a frog instead? I can see if I can find one…
(God, haven’t read your story yet. Glad you did this! It’s huge, and it’s being underreported in the leftie blogs.)
NPR had excellent coverage of the case and the arguments this afternoon.
Here’s a frog.
I was wondering when the time would come when you’d be forced to accept FP status so that you could leave some room on the Rec list for other people :p
I feel guilty about having all of those diaries up there right now. Unrecommend people, unrecommend. 🙂
I’d say between your comments and diaries lately you’ve been hitting some nerves spot on.
Keep that kind of thing up and you might have to open up Catnip Tribune 😀
Keep that kind of thing up and you might have to open up Catnip Tribune
Just crawling out of my comfy bed in the morning is a challenge. I doubt very much there’s a catnip tribune in my near future. 🙂
Congratulations Catnip, however I’d be careful about kissing the frog – you never know what he might turn into.
Congrats on the promotion (or condolences — whatever’s appropriate ;0)
My guess? Roberts swings to the Scalia side of the equation this one. Any thing else would be wishful thinking in my opinion.
Roe is also a goner within the next year.
yipppieee for Catnip…Congrats you new Front Pager you..with front page statues that means that you will provide shelter for all of us when the time comes that we are forced to flee the country when the witch hunt starts. Awesome Diary too. Did you get a transcript? Is Roberts a lock to join Scalia & Thomas not only on this issue but for the rest for enternity? I thought Repugs supported States Rights? oh well..”One Nation under BUSH”..surprised the Neocons don’t want to change the pledge to that. btw/ The subject line is to long..might consider a change, it wouldn’t take until I changed it.
with front page statues that means that you will provide shelter for all of us when the time comes that we are forced to flee the country when the witch hunt starts.
I missed that part in the contract. That’s what I get for not reading the fine print! I’d better start cleaning my house.
Did you get a transcript?
Not yet. I’ll see what else I can dig up.
are these front-page statues? Are they marble, wood, bronze?
Statues, Status…Whatever…You should all have Platinum frog Statues. My mind is swirling with all this Miers stuff. Careful or I will start writing like Bob Johnsons Dog. Happy Catnip Day everyone.
about his ability to decide on the law, not his ideology. If we had a real opposition in this country it would stall further SC nominations until the first ruling from Roberts reveals how honest he was during the confirmation hearing.
I don’t know how long this decision will take but throwing Miers into the mix at this point is uncomfortable, to say the least.
I don’t trust Roberts and I don’t trust Miers. If she replaces Sandra Day O’Connor, who appears to be taking a dissenting opinion here, the decision will be skewed by someone who has absolutely no judicial experience. Roberts, with his “I’ll judge based on the rule of law” schtick can certainly use that to justify voting for the government in this case. This is all happening too quickly.
if the Dems had the least bit of concern for the nation, or just simple courage of their alleged convictions, they’d be openly stalling the Miers nomination until there’s evidence on whether Roberts handed them a load of bull.
Here’s another candidate with even less of a track record, who is being sold entirely by a “trust Bush” pitch. Maybe if Roberts proves that he wasn’t lying during the hearings, the Senate could consider taking a chance on another unknown quantity. Until the evidence is in, they should refuse to let the nomination move, and do it openly.
The USSC does not need 9 members to function. There’s nothing in the Constitution that sets any particular number of members. It started with six and has had as many as 10. It can get along just fine with 8 if O’Connor decides to step down before a successor is confirmed.
That’s what I’ll be writing to my Senator Durbin. I suggest others do the same.
I noted in another comment that this case won’t be decided until mid 2006. That’s interesting timing as well since it will be in the middle of the next election cycle. I wonder what impact that might have on the justices.
Congrats, Catnip….I have thought for a long time you should be on the front page and glad to see it’s happened.
I am following this case you talk about, saw a segment about it last night on cable news…here we go again is what I say…
Whatever decision is rendered in this case will show us a lot about this court, or at least give us a hint.
I think we need a new and improved Bill of Rights here!
Thanks so much, Diane. Your endorsement means a lot to me.
BooMan could not have made a better pick for a Front Pager. 🙂
My head’s gonna explode.
A fine first FP post! Congratulations, catnip!!!
We’ll be having cheesecake at Chez Cabin in your honor!
I’m drooling. I think I’ll have to head over to the frozen food section at Safeway after all.
What an excellant debut!
Let’s see if these so-called conservatives have a consistent view of state’s rights or if they only use it as a rallying cry when it suits their agenda. Hmmm. I think I know the answer to that…
That’s the thing about this case. IANAL, but it seems to me that any abrigation of states rights in this case could set a precedent for others – and not just in the area of the Controlled Substances Act. Although I suppose the Supremes could write a limited decision, right?
First, Congrats Catnip. Second, THANK YOU for “front paging” this. I saw this in the AP feed and thought, “Okay, this is it. This is where we find out where he really stands.” Just wish it could be useed to stall the Miers confirmaton…
you are indeed a fine addition to the FP here at Booman, I have enjoyed you analysis and commentary on many fine subjects and look forward to more enjoyable reading in the future.
Again congratulations and thank you Booman and Susan for promoting her to FP status.
of the never-ending slice of cheesecake:
Congrats and thanks for bringing up this important test on the future direction of the SCOTUS. (Anyone else chuckle when they see that acronym? Maybe it’s me and my infantile musings)
lol – it’s not just you.
Thanks for not hogging the cheesecake this time, you cheesecake eating bastard! 🙂
(oops – do I have to watch my manners now??)
otherwise I will start circulating petitions to banish you back to the diary-underbelly of the frog pond with the rest of us muck-rakers. O:-)
just shoot me if I start acting like Armando.
I’d rather pop some kettle korn and watch you tussle with Booman, Ductape and Damnit Janet
The decision in this case is not expected until the middle of 2006 – long after Sandra Day O’Connor will have departed the court.
Terrific first FP diary catnip…yahoooo..great choice susan and booman..and gives you two some breathing space. I was already thinking of you as a intregal part of booman due to all your great diaries, comments so being FPaged is just a natural progression in my mind.
Funny how ‘morals’ can be interpreted so differently by people. The rightwingers believe it is morally wrong for assisted death while I on the other hand think it is morally wrong for me not to have that choice for myself.
It should be interesting following all the legal arguments for/against this case.
I completely concur CI. It is immoral to force pain and suffering on someone.
I also think the whole “State’s Rights” issue is becoming more and more of a thorn in the conservatives side. What if Roe v. Wade is tossed and the question of abortion rights becomes a state issue?
And that of course is the crux of the whole rightwing/fundie repugs premise of ‘law’…they want to legislate morality-according to their own personal(and warped)ideas of ‘moral’s. They don’t give a shit about law really or the constitution but their whacked out idea of ‘biblical law’ for everyone-again as interpreted by them and to force everyone to abide by their oppressive ‘moral’ view.
What is the legend of the cheesecake, BTW?
that…is a really good question.
Congratulations Catnip! I’ve loved your diaries and think you are a great choice for FP!
…know, I’ve appreciated your stuff since before there was a BooMan Tribune.
hugs
Well, I think, according a USA Today article describing today’s court session, that we have a pretty good idea where he stands.
States’ rights? That depends on what rights the state wants. The right to decide who can be legally married, or whether a terminally ill patient has the right to die with dignity or refuse artificial life support? Or the right to set “moral standards” for who can adopt a child, allow industrial processes that pollute water upstream, or contaminate the air or drain the wetlands for development?
If it’s something the conservatives support, they’re all about states’ rights. If it’s something they don’t like, it’s federal authority all the way, baby. That is, as soon as they can get judges who don’t “legislate from the bench”… when they know which way the court will rule, it will be “this should be decided fairly by the courts…”
Argh.
PS: Welcome to the front page, Catnip! Good to see you there!
Very impressed with your work.
That’s about all Bush will tell us about Miers, that she won’t legislate from the bench. Did he say that about Roberts too? If the Supreme Court overturns Oregon’s law, voted on twice, then they are damn well legislating from the bench!
(And I want to second everyone else’s comments: Welcome, Catnip. Don’t you and SusanHu ever sleep? You both are phenomenal!)
.
Love your diaries, no matter where you try to hide them – front page now!
Thanks BooMan and SusanHu for a thoughtful choice, you make GWB jealous for great support you are receiving in wise decision. Thanks catnip for accepting this challenge.
I understand by agreement in promotion, you will seek a fellow Canadian to fill the gap you left behind in World Recommended diaries.
Don’t tell us you were completely taken by surprise, and didn’t have time to …
Appreciate BooMan for not promoting a crony from his social circles of the eighties, a Miers look alike.
▼ ▼ ▼
I’m just a simple herb in size 8 shoes.
decision regarding California’s medical marijuana laws, I hold out little hope for Oregon in this case.
And you’re right, Catnip — considering how the Religious Reich talks about the joys of religiosity, they sure seem to be scared of death. I worry that “living wills” will be next in their target sites…
Oh, BTW, congrats on the promotion — now you’ve got to stay healthy so we don’t fucking worry about you, you hear?
Hugs and kisses… 🙂
High Court Clashes Over Ore. Law That Lets Doctors Help Terminally Ill Patients End Their Lives
——————————-
I tried to access that link several times but it wouldn’t load. I suppose they’re referring to this?
Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose and “it suggests that the attorney general has the authority to interpret that phrase” to declare that assisted suicide is not legitimate. Roberts asked three questions of the Bush administration lawyer, noting that Congress passed one drug law only after “lax state treatment of opium.”
“I was wondering if the new chief would hold back and wouldn’t ruffle other people’s feathers. It appears clear he’s not waiting for anything or anyone,” said Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke University and a former Supreme Court clerk.
Hmmm…looks like he’s a pitbull in size 12 shoes. So much for being open-minded.
What’s really tragic here is that the law has worked, with none of the dire predictions of elderly people being coerced to die coming true.
In several years, only 208 people have chosen this route here in Oregon. What it has done is opened up a serious conversation about compassion for the dying. Many people who get the prescription don’t end up using it–they just want to know that they have the ability to say it’s over if they feel it’s time. It gives them a sense of control when everything else is out of their control.
I don’t have the studies handy, but most of the people who chose this route are well-educated and fear loss of control and dependence. Most of the families have reported an experience that’s about as good as it gets with death. There has only been one case I know of where the drugs didn’t work.
It’s been a good law in Oregon. It’s increased attention to pain control and comfort measures for terminally ill patients. This was after a swing toward denying adequate pain medication because it’s addictive.
The law requires a person to be determined to be terminally ill by a doctor, and they have to request the prescription twice. There’s a waiting period and a second opinion. It’s not like people stop at the drive-up pharmacy on a whim for a lethal dose of barbiturates.
I don’t know what to expect from the court, but our state voted on it twice. The first time it was close; the second time it was even more in favor of the law.
It truly is a compassionate law and it has enough restrictions that it can’t be abused. It would be a targedy if it was overturned.