Comments on: Close division on “death with dignity” http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/10/close-division-on-death-with-dignity/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tim Dowling http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/10/close-division-on-death-with-dignity/#comment-8087 Tim Dowling Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:20:31 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/close-division-on-death-with-dignity/#comment-8087 Gawaine – The Solicitor General readily acknowledged he was defending federal authority over assisted suicide only within the confines of the federal Controlled Substances Act. He cited Dr. Kevorkian as an example of someone who facilitated suicides with substances not covered by the federal CSA and thus was outside the authority of the Attorney General regulation at issue in the case. Gawaine – The Solicitor General readily acknowledged he was defending federal authority over assisted suicide only within the confines of the federal Controlled Substances Act. He cited Dr. Kevorkian as an example of someone who facilitated suicides with substances not covered by the federal CSA and thus was outside the authority of the Attorney General regulation at issue in the case.

]]> By: Dilan Esper http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/10/close-division-on-death-with-dignity/#comment-8086 Dilan Esper Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:43:25 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/close-division-on-death-with-dignity/#comment-8086 Why does everyone assume that Thomas is offended by assisted suicide just because Scalia is? Thomas may very well vote for Oregon here, because (1) he believes in states' rights, and (2) he expressed a lot of sympathy for the state medical marijuana policies in his Raich dissent. If I were to bet, I would bet on Scalia voting for the government and Thomas providing the fifth vote for Oregon. Why does everyone assume that Thomas is offended by assisted suicide just because Scalia is? Thomas may very well vote for Oregon here, because (1) he believes in states’ rights, and (2) he expressed a lot of sympathy for the state medical marijuana policies in his Raich dissent.

If I were to bet, I would bet on Scalia voting for the government and Thomas providing the fifth vote for Oregon.

]]> By: Hans Bader http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/10/close-division-on-death-with-dignity/#comment-8085 Hans Bader Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:34:26 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/close-division-on-death-with-dignity/#comment-8085 I hope Oregon wins, but it definitely won't. Federalism usually fares worse in the court's actual decisions than it appears from the oral arguments. A sympathetic comment from a justice isn't the same as getting her vote. For example, in one of my cases, U.S. v. Morrison case, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the justices didn't have anything nice to say about the federal government's position at oral argument (they knew the feds' claims about the need for a federal law in the area, which was already vigorously policed by the States, were just silly), but the law was only struck down 5-to-4. I hope Oregon wins, but it definitely won’t.

Federalism usually fares worse in the court’s actual decisions than it appears from the oral arguments. A sympathetic comment from a justice isn’t the same as getting her vote.

For example, in one of my cases, U.S. v. Morrison case, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the justices didn’t have anything nice to say about the federal government’s position at oral argument (they knew the feds’ claims about the need for a federal law in the area, which was already vigorously policed by the States, were just silly), but the law was only struck down 5-to-4.

]]> By: gawaine http://www.scotusblog.com/2005/10/close-division-on-death-with-dignity/#comment-8084 gawaine Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:54:32 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/close-division-on-death-with-dignity/#comment-8084 So, if the only reason that the government can challenge the law is based on drug-enforcement, does that mean that states can authorize assisted suicide by electricution or drowning? How about by using substances that aren't currently controlled - death by caffeine? Carbon monoxide poisoning? Jumping off a bridge? Watching MSNBC? <br /><br /> This approach doesn't seem to outlaw assisted suicide, it just delays it while Oregon finds a way to let people kill themselves without controlled substances. Is there some deeper truth here that I'm missing? So, if the only reason that the government can challenge the law is based on drug-enforcement, does that mean that states can authorize assisted suicide by electricution or drowning? How about by using substances that aren’t currently controlled – death by caffeine? Carbon monoxide poisoning? Jumping off a bridge? Watching MSNBC?

This approach doesn’t seem to outlaw assisted suicide, it just delays it while Oregon finds a way to let people kill themselves without controlled substances. Is there some deeper truth here that I’m missing?

]]>