Chief Justice John Robert's first case
New Chief Justice John Roberts strongly hinted he would back the Bush administration in its bid to stop doctor-assisted suicide in Oregon. His predecessor, William Rehnquist, a states’ rights champion who died a month ago of cancer, might have been more likely to go the other way.
Just four months ago, Rehnquist voted to block federal agents from overriding state medical marijuana laws to arrest sick pot users. The dispute over Oregon’s one-of-a-kind doctor-assisted suicide law raised similar issues to that case, in which Rehnquist was on the losing side. The outcome of the Oregon case, argued yesterday at the court, is hard to predict in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She seemed ready to support Oregon’s law. Her replacement might be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now.
The Supreme Court’s last opinion on physician-assisted suicide was written by Rehnquist eight years ago.
"Throughout the nation, Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality and practicality of physician-assisted suicide. Our holding permits this debate to continue, as it should in a democratic society," he wrote.
Under Rehnquist’s rule, the court had sought to embolden states to set their own rules, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Bush administration lawyer that "everyone on the court in that" 1997 "case seemed to assume that physician-assisted suicide was a matter for the state."
The latest case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president’s conservative religious supporters.
Hastening someone’s death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration.
Oregon won a lawsuit in a lower court over its voter-approved law, which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people.
Roberts, named chief justice by George W. Bush not long after Rehnquist’s death, repeatedly raised concerns during the argument session that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules.
"If one state can say it’s legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn’t that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?" he asked.
Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself in the middle of the debate. He interrupted Oregon’s senior assistant attorney general, Robert Atkinson, in his first minute, then asked more than a dozen more tough questions.
Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose, and "it suggests that the attorney general has the authority to interpret that phrase," to declare that assisted suicide is not legitimate. Roberts asked three questions of the Bush administration lawyer, noting that Congress passed one drug law only after "lax state treatment of opium."
"I was wondering if the new chief would hold back and wouldn’t ruffle other people’s feathers. It appears clear he’s not waiting for anything or anyone," said Neil Siegel, a former Supreme Court clerk.
Just four months ago, Rehnquist voted to block federal agents from overriding state medical marijuana laws to arrest sick pot users. The dispute over Oregon’s one-of-a-kind doctor-assisted suicide law raised similar issues to that case, in which Rehnquist was on the losing side. The outcome of the Oregon case, argued yesterday at the court, is hard to predict in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She seemed ready to support Oregon’s law. Her replacement might be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now.
The Supreme Court’s last opinion on physician-assisted suicide was written by Rehnquist eight years ago.
"Throughout the nation, Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality and practicality of physician-assisted suicide. Our holding permits this debate to continue, as it should in a democratic society," he wrote.
Under Rehnquist’s rule, the court had sought to embolden states to set their own rules, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Bush administration lawyer that "everyone on the court in that" 1997 "case seemed to assume that physician-assisted suicide was a matter for the state."
The latest case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president’s conservative religious supporters.
Hastening someone’s death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration.
Oregon won a lawsuit in a lower court over its voter-approved law, which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people.
Roberts, named chief justice by George W. Bush not long after Rehnquist’s death, repeatedly raised concerns during the argument session that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules.
"If one state can say it’s legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn’t that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?" he asked.
Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself in the middle of the debate. He interrupted Oregon’s senior assistant attorney general, Robert Atkinson, in his first minute, then asked more than a dozen more tough questions.
Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose, and "it suggests that the attorney general has the authority to interpret that phrase," to declare that assisted suicide is not legitimate. Roberts asked three questions of the Bush administration lawyer, noting that Congress passed one drug law only after "lax state treatment of opium."
"I was wondering if the new chief would hold back and wouldn’t ruffle other people’s feathers. It appears clear he’s not waiting for anything or anyone," said Neil Siegel, a former Supreme Court clerk.
posted by Joey Bee at 8:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home