Go Back   Jazzcorner's Speakeasy > POLITICS, WORLD ISSUES & WORLD EVENTS
Connect with Facebook

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January-17th-2006, 05:15 PM   #1
frank m
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 390
uh,o. First vote by chief justice Roberts==

The Supremes by a vote of 6-3 killed the administration's threat to prosecute Doctors in Oregon who take part in assisted suicides. However, looking at whom the three votes belong to should surprise noone about two of them and create a chill wind from the third. It was of course, Scalia and Thomas, and our new CJ. Roberts. I fear we will see that trio together again joined most probably by Alito.Is anybody surprised?

Last edited by frank m; January-17th-2006 at 05:16 PM.
frank m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January-17th-2006, 08:08 PM   #2
Brian Olewnick
Unflappable
 
Brian Olewnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Posts: 15,849
As I understand it, and as is often the case, the issue wasn't about assisted suicide as such (something I 100% support) but concerned a narrower matter--whether the Federal government can restrict the sale of certain controlled substances which are used to end these patients' lives in a humane manner. Ashcroft had said he could restrict them; Oregon sued and won. It was really more a states' rights or statute interpretation case, all the more odd, in a sense, that those three voted against it. I wouldn't doubt that at least part of their reasoning had to do with the wider implications of the case but it's entirely possible that they were voting on what they perceived to be the specific merits. Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision was, according to court observers, apparently on the fence for much of the trial, possibly indicating that it was a close judicial call.
Brian Olewnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January-18th-2006, 09:39 AM   #3
Dr Dave
User
 
Dr Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Below the line
Posts: 9,884
I think the issue was a bit broader, but only a bit--it had to do with whether the Attorney General has the right to criminalize an activity without first consulting Congress. Short answer: He doesn't.

On the larger issue of how Roberts will vote, I'd hold fire for a little while. All he did this time around was sign Scalia's dissent. It will take more than one decision to figure out whether he's an Unrestrained Executive Power kinda guy.
Dr Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January-18th-2006, 10:28 AM   #4
Darryl G. Thomas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Upper Marlboro, Maryland
Posts: 2,935
Doc,

And if Roberts is there ain't a damn thing to be done about it. And wait until Scalito comes aboard.

This was all ideological. The Clinton Administration let the law slide. Bush and crew comes along and they didn't. Hopefully, the next administration, Democrat or Republican, wont be populated by ideological nut jobs like the current one.

Last edited by Darryl G. Thomas; January-18th-2006 at 10:29 AM.
Darryl G. Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January-18th-2006, 10:37 AM   #5
rollhead
Quitting @ 10.4k
 
rollhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York state
Posts: 11,087
To think that Cuomo might be on he Court making a grease spot out of Scalia.
rollhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Jazzcorner's Speakeasy > POLITICS, WORLD ISSUES & WORLD EVENTS

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All material copyright 2009 jazzcorner.com