|
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.
|