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
