After forcing states to allow people to kill their own babies, this should come as no surprise. In the case of (Gonzales v. Oregon), the US Supreme Court decided that the state of Oregon’s assisted suicide law is OK. So now in America, innocent babies and people suffering from terminal illnesses can be killed. With babies, they get no say in the matter. With the terminally ill, they must agree that they want to die. There is no trial in either case and the death sentence is allowed to take place without any judicial review.
While states must wait years to execute the worst of convicted killers. Like Clarence Ray Allen, who ordered murders from his prison cell, after being incarcerated for a prior murder. And ironically, while Justice Stephen Breyer was in the majority in the Gonzales v. Oregon case to allow assisted suicide, he was against Mr. Allen being executed.
Calif. executes oldest condemned man
…
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Monday pleas to spare Allen’s life. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer issued a dissenting statement, citing Allen’s age, bad health and the fact he had been on death row for 23 years as reasons to stay the execution.
…
|
He’s fine with the terminally ill getting help being killed, but against the execution of a convicted murderer, because he is old and ill. In Justice Breyer’s Liberal mind this makes perfect sense!
If you want an MSM story about the Gonzales v. Oregon case, you can get that here. The actual court ruling is available here.
Justices Roberts, Scalia and Thomas appropriately dissented from this lunacy! Because the Federal Government can tell doctors that they can’t kill people. It is inherently bad medicine. If somebody wants to die, then they better do the deed themselves. If they are not able, they better learn how to hold their own breath till death! No government should foster a culture of death by allowing people to kill someone that is ill.
Justice Kennedy in writing for the majority said:
From Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority decision
…
The Government contends the Attorney General’s decision here is a legal, not a medical, one. This generality, however, does not suffice.
…
|
Interesting how he and other Liberal Justices take the exact opposite view of abortion. Totally ignoring the medically proven life that exists in the womb of a pregnant woman. The majority sided with the ultra-Liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that also upheld the assisted suicide law.
Justice Scalia wrote for the dissenting Justices and Justice Thomas wrote an additional separate dissent of his own.
Justice Scalia writing in dissent mentions:
From Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent
…
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
The Court concludes that the Attorney General lacked authority to declare assisted suicide illicit under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), because the CSA is concerned only with “illicit drug dealing and trafficking,” ante, at 23 (emphasis added). This question-begging conclusion is obscured by a flurry of arguments that distort the statute and disregard settled principles of our interpretive jurisprudence.
Contrary to the Court’s analysis, this case involves not one but three independently sufficient grounds for reversing the Ninth Circuit’s judgment. First, the AttorneyGeneral’s interpretation of “legitimate medical purpose” in 21 CFR §1306.04 (2005) (hereinafter Regulation) is clearly valid, given the substantial deference we must accord it under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461 (1997), and his two remaining conclusions follow naturally from this interpretation. See Part I, infra. Second, even if this interpretation of the Regulation is entitled to lesser deference or no deference at all, it is by far the most natural interpretation of the Regulation—whose validity is not challenged here. This interpretation is thus correct even upon de novo review. See Part II, infra. Third, even if that interpretation of the Regulation were incorrect, the Attorney General’s independent interpretation of the statutory phrase “public interest” in 21 U. S. C. §§824(a) and 823(f), and his implicit interpretation of the statutory phrase “public health and safety” in §823(f)(5), are entitled to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), and they are valid under Chevron. See Part III, infra. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
…
|
Justice Thomas writing in dissent mentions:
From Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent
…
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
When Angel Raich and Diane Monson challenged the application of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq., to their purely intrastate possession of marijuana for medical use as authorized under California law, a majority of this Court (a mere seven months ago) determined that the CSA effectively invalidated California’s law because “the CSA is a comprehensiveregulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. ___, ___ (2005) (slip op., at 24) (emphasis added). The majority employed unambiguous language, concluding that the “manner” in which controlled substances can be utilized “for medicinal purposes” is one of the “core activities regulated by the CSA.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 25). And, it described the CSA as “creating a comprehensive framework for regulating the production, distribution, and possession of . . . ‘controlled substances,’ ” including those substances that “‘have a useful and legitimate medical purpose,’ ” in order to “foster the beneficial use of those medications” and “to prevent their misuse.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 21).
Today the majority beats a hasty retreat from these conclusions.
…
|
Can you say a “flip flop court”? Justices Scalia and Thomas exposed the hypocrisy of the court, using two different angles. Because that is how blatant the Liberal Justices’ abuse of the Constitution is!
Considering Judge Samuel Alito would possibly switch O’Connor’s vote if he was confirmed and on this case. That would make the decision 5-4. Meaning, we’ve still got one justice to go. The Liberal Justices have several in their camp that will be leaving before the current Conservatives on the US Supreme Court. So we’ve got to dig in deep on the next nomination! And we should do the same with everyone after that. To keep things on the side of sound reason. Instead of the current Liberal psychosis!
February 18th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
The Culture of Death
While it is an unfortunate turnout from the Court, it is pleasant news that our new Judge Roberts has come out on the side of life, unlike most of the relativistic, death-worshiping liberal elites whose mouths water at the sight of terrorized fetuses a…