Posted on 10/10/2005 9:31:15 AM PDT by conservativebabe
Have at it folks.
Why does he make you want to barf?
I think Roberts will be declaring with his vote on this issue whether he is really a strict constructionist or simply an authoritarian conservative. And I'm wondering whether the Court will delay the release of the opinion until after Miers' confirmation hearings.
How about this. You want to die? Do it yourself.
I'm a pro-life as they come, but we've gotten into a lot of problems as a country by trying to take the shorter road. I don't like Euthanasia at all, but I can't find any provision in the constituion forbidding it. If the people of Oregon feel it important for someone to end their life, then the feds should drop it. Conservatives can't have their cake and eat it too.
Mainly because he is a liberal hack. Of course, being from my local paper, I would know that and you would not.
You are right though about Roberts and whether or not he will turn out to be a strict constructionalist.
So, given that about 10 constitutional principles collide in this one, which do you think is the position that a "strict construtionist" should take?
What does that have to do with the seperation of powers and the 10th amendment? Or are you OK with judicial activism so long as you approve of the outcome?
The 10th amendment. This issue is not discussed in any way shape or form in the constitution, and should thus be left to the states.
The federal role in the matter is clearly not in the Constitution. Of course, the new right doesn't seem to mind that much if the judicial activism is in their supposed best interest.
For instance does the state's right to off its citizens override due process and equal protection?
How about this... Watch a loved one slowly wither away from painful and agressive cancer of the liver and colon, have a massive stroke in his last days, come down with pneumonia in the hospital, and stand there helpless knowing that he is in incredible pain and you're not able to do a damn thing about it.
THEN we'll see if you are against humane and painless assisted suicide.
No, but the state is not offing its citizens.
Generally, I agree with you that this case will tell us a lot about Roberts. You do miss one alternative though, the third alternative is minimalist. That is, there are so many years of bad law on the commerce clause, he's not going to try to reverse all of them in his first case.
Even if he is a minimalist, I would like to see some expression of concern about the commerce clause issue. If he's not even concerned about it, he's a clunker and Bush is 0 for 1.
I saw we just starve them to death instead of using drugs. We all know and have learned that being starved to death is a painless, wonderful, calm, and peaceful way to die.
Well okey dokie. If you say so (I mean your statement - this issue is not discussed in any way shape or form in the constitution). I suspect, however, it is not quite so simple as that.
Euthanasia will probably grow into a social event.
Like Terry Schievo (sp)?
No, it is handing out license to private individuals to do it for them.
This law is about able-minded terminally-ill people being allowed to die on their terms.
I so sick of hearing about Terri Schiavo.. the comparison is apples to oranges.
And you would be correct, insofar that the Court has spent the last 50 years reading into the constitution things that aren't there. So yes, this probably clashes with a whole bunch of invented constitutional provisons - just not with any of the provisions the exist in the actual written constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.