|
|
WASHINGTON-- The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die. Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that a federal drug law does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time. The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to punish Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of prescription medicines, the court majority said. Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Kennedy is expected to become a more influential swing voter after O'Connor's departure. He is a moderate conservative who sometimes joins the liberal wing of the court in cases involving such things as gay rights and capital punishment. The ruling was a reprimand to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in 2001 said that doctor-assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose and that Oregon physicians would be punished for helping people die under the law. Kennedy said the authority claimed by the attorney general is both beyond his expertise and incongruous with the statutory purposes and design. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself, Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine. If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death, he wrote. Scalia said the court's ruling is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people-- those with incurable diseases and who are of sound mind, and after at least two doctors agree they have six months or less to live. For Oregon's physicians and pharmacists, as well as patients and their families, today's ruling confirms that Oregon's law is valid and that they can act under it without fear of federal sanctions, state Solicitor General Mary Williams said. The ruling backed a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Ashcroft's unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide. Ashcroft had brought the case to the Supreme Court on the day his resignation was announced by the White House in 2004. The Justice Department has continued the case, under the leadership of his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The court's ruling was not a final say on federal authority to override state doctor-assisted suicide laws-- only a declaration that the current federal scheme did not permit that. However, it could still have ramifications outside of Oregon. This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted suicide laws, said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which backed the administration. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and a supporter of the law, said the ruling has stopped, for now, the administration's attempts to wrest control of decisions rightfully left to the states and individuals. Thomas wrote his own dissent as well, to complain that the court's reasoning was puzzling. Roberts did not write separately. Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice. Roberts strongly hinted in October when the case was argued that he would back the administration. O'Connor had seemed ready to support Oregon's law, but her vote would not have counted if the ruling was handed down after she left the court. The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company Oregon Christian Coalition Head Resigns - Family Sexual Abuse If these are *family values* then the right is RIGHT. I'm proud to say I These people get scarier and scarier every day, and I'm keeping my children Christian Coalition head to withdraw from political life 10/10/2005, 5:50 p.m. PT By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI The Associated Press PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The longtime head of the Christian Coalition of Oregon I am thankful for a family that loves and supports me, and intend to withdraw Beres has denied any criminal misconduct and wrote that he will pursue the Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk told The Oregonian The three women — now adults — allege they were abused by Beres as preteens. I was molested, one of the women, now in her 50s, told The Oregonian. I was Beres, 70, has blamed personal and political enemies for the complaint. Only one of the three cases appears to fall under Oregon's statute of A nephew of Beres' is standing up for the three women. My family has gone through hell, said Richard Galat, 41, of Oakland, Calif., Lives have been ruined. Those of us who have come forward have been In response to Galat's statements, Beres said on the Christian Coalition web Beres, who did not immediately return a phone message from The Associated Jim Moore, who teaches political science at Pacific University in Forest In fact, under his leadership, the Christian Coalition in Oregon has gone In state legislative races in 2004, for example, Moore said that, we found Oregon Republican Chairman Vance Day said Beres hasn't been much of a factor I don't view this as having any major impact on politics here in Oregon; I The group did support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage that Tim Nashif, the political director of that group, said he has few details Anytime any family goes through anything like this it's a pretty grievous Why is it strange? SM He received a Christmas card when he was recovering in the VA Hospital. The card said it hoped he died. A picture of the car and the article are on the conservative board. Lots of GIs got spit on coming home during Vietnam. I don't call that strange. I call it abominable and unforgivable. Strange..... I for one haven't called anyone socialists, evil, or stupid but it's interesting that's where your mind goes. My belief hasn't been forced on anyone but it is my hope that they one day do believe in Jesus Christ if they don't already. I notice those (you) seem to feel very offended for reasons that don't make sense when speaking about God and it's usually because that individual doesn't know God and really has nothing but emptiness inside. That emptiness just comes spews out as hatred, nastiness, loathsomeness. The list goes on and on. How sad. Strange...nm nm Strange though, isn't it, none of this came out until after he was able to cast that all necessary 60th vote to pass the stimulus bill! Almost makes you feel like it is illegal, doesn't it? Naw, they wouldn't do that...... This is really strange! Since when does a 1-day- old fetus has anything to say or decide? Legally until age of 18, we cannot decide anything. Strange, I did not see any of them stooping as low as Obama did when he bowed to the Saudi Arabian king. Strange coincidence. What a coincidence! I don't know how many times I've been trolled on this board both then and now and had the happy little God bless you and have a nice day or have a wonderful weekend tacked onto the end - kind of jarring, and kind of person-specific. But who knows, could just be a strange coinky-dink. Actually, who cares:) We have stuff to discuss. Why you talk strange? I do not get. Me need new insult, yes. Strange logic! x Isn't it strange how you can make fun all you want about age, gender, special needs children, teen pregnancy, POW status, being a beauty pageant contestant, someone's accent, religious beliefs, how many homes someone owns, but mention one time that the other candidate is black and you are racist, unkind, politically incorrect and insensitive. I find it strange that....(sm) you would be so worried about Obama enough to consistently question everything about him on this board, and yet when he says something you don't want to hear it. Interesting. 7 Strange Coincidences I am NO conspiracy theorist and i am no fan of Obama, but my on/off boyfriend has become a born again Christian due to seraching youtube for "7 Strange Coincidences". He just called me near tears saying he wants me to be saved. This is COMPLETELY not like him. He tells me he is now following in the footsteps of Jesus, trying not to sin. etc (which of course is NOT a bad thing to me) but anyways I posted in the Faith forum but nobody seems to respond... Can someone dispute everything ? I mean I know you can't dispute it when they are coincidences... and I know the Obama supporters will just be like this is pure CRAP and the obama haters will be like HE IS THE ANTICHRIST. Is there anything in between that can take an unobstructed view of the situation and give any insight? I mean... i dont know how to deal with the BF and his new ways... I believe in God but know I sin. UGHHHHHHH why is this happening now! Hmmmmmmmmmm, that's strange Four of my family members are loan officers and this became a huge issue with them. Strange they knew the govt was forcing these loans down their throats and this was a huge issue with them. They were furious these practices were being put into place. They refused to loan, however, and 2 nearly lost their jobs because they refused to give out subprime loans to those they knew perfectly well could not afford a home. Yes, they were being forced to give these loans.....this didn't come from your little TV programs; this came from the ones caught in the middle of this crap. Too bad they weren't making a mint on this junk.....unfortunately, they were just having to follow the guidelines for loans that were enforced on them by the government. DO YOUR RESEARCH!! Of course you don't find it strange this "suddenly" came about and not even openly I might add. Remember, one poster said she couldn't even find it on the DHS website..... which of course should bother you immensely but I'm sure doesn't. Right before the massive outrage from the American citizens against being taxed to death by protesting and demonstrating through the tea parties, the DHS just happens to come up with this..... and very sneaky at that! I have actually read the document and YES, I would object just as harshly if ANYONE, including liberals, were being targeted. Do you not understand why? I am not a republican as those like yourself seem to always think. If someone is against Obama, then they are definitely republican....what a ignorant way to think! We are talking about our 1st amendment rights here!! This has nothing to do with what side you take; it's about losing your freedoms! Did you not get the part about "conservative" being the main topic of the file? The heading does NOT say anything about terrorism.... it says "conservative extremism". There are already laws in place concerning domestic terrorism........... this is an OPEN threat against conservatives. You can either see it for what it really is or keep fooling yourself. The topic of the file speaks for itself, unless you can't read. Of course you don't find it strange this "suddenly" came about and not even openly I might add. Remember, one poster said she couldn't even find it on the DHS website..... which of course should bother you immensely but I'm sure doesn't. Right before the massive outrage from the American citizens against being taxed to death by protesting and demonstrating through the tea parties, the DHS just happens to come up with this..... and very sneaky at that! I have actually read the document and YES, I would object just as harshly if ANYONE, including liberals, were being targeted. Do you not understand why? I am not a republican as those like yourself seem to always think. If someone is against Obama, then they are definitely republican....what a ignorant way to think! We are talking about our 1st amendment rights here!! This has nothing to do with what side you take; it's about losing your freedoms! Did you not get the part about "conservative" being the main topic of the file? The heading does NOT say anything about terrorism.... it says "conservative extremism". There are already laws in place concerning domestic terrorism........... this is an OPEN threat against conservatives. You can either see it for what it really is or keep fooling yourself. The topic of the file speaks for itself, unless you can't read. Strange....he's an adult now ...... He wrote that book as an adult, knowing full well young and old blacks alike will read that book! If you think for one second they didn't understand those racist remarks, think again! That is the reason racism will not go away.... people like him who perpetuate it.. Believe his lies if you want! Isn't that what you are doing? Telling me... what to think and what to do? You can state you want free license to kill babies and I can't say I am against that? Get over YOURself. We are telling you (sm) The Bible tells us in several books, particularly Revelations. For someone who does not believe, read it as a history book. The fact that everything it says is coming to pass is undeniable. I don't necessarily think Obama is the anti-Christ. I do think everything else is coming to pass though, and we need to be looking for who the anti-Christ is. I have had my doubts in the past about my religion as well, but it is undeniable that the things the Bible predicts will happen are truly happening now. So, you are telling us that you never support Bush as our President and yet you expect everyone now to be bubbling over with excitement and accept Obama just because you do and pour our support behind him from day one. It is people like you who are so blind-sided and selfish and think only about yourself. You have been mully-grubbing Bush for 8 long years, so you never once gave him a chance. Obama has not even taken office yet and you are already deliriously happy, how do you know he is going to give you reason to beam with pride? You, along with a whole host of others, are such a foolish child. You are really telling 1 now, for example I was on the gab board yesterday and you came over there and started throwing your opinions around at something I said. You should tell the truth (but I guess most on her know about you anyway)- maybe it is just not like you to tell the truth. You gang up on anyone first. Why the capitalization- afraid you cant be heard good enough? Why don’t you just slime away. Nobody is telling you anything "You don't know how to be happy without a piece of paper?" Well if that is the case then you and your husband should not be allowed to be married either. Can't you two be happy without a piece of paper. What kind of ludicrous thing to say. I am a human being. I should have the same rights you do to be able to marry whom I want to. You sit and tell me I should be happy with being discriminated against. Is that what you said about the blacks who had to ride in the back of the bus and not be allowed to sit up with the white folks (before Rosa Parks) - "you should just be happy to be able to ride the bus". Or how about not being able to drink out of the same water fountain as the white folks - "you should just be happy your getting any water at all". And I'm sick and tired of hearing how we should just be happy to be together and not be afforded the same things that other human beings are afforded. When I can't make decisions about my other halves health care or other issues then yeah, that bothers me. When her family hates us because we are gay and takes everything we have lived for away from us, yeah, then that bothers me. And you you know...when Judy and Barbara get married in the sight of God, their minister, and witnesses yes, that is "lawful" and their marriage license will say so, and you can say what you want - it means nothing. But don't sit there and say I can get married but you can't. You can keep your moral values all you want, just stop spreading that type of bigotry. We're are not pushing anything down your throat. We want to get married and live our lives without anyone interfering with us. You talk about twisting and manipulating. God loves everyone and there is nothing to prove that God disapproves of gay or lesbian marriage. In fact if Judy is dying and nobody will take care of her but Barbara I think God will love her probably a bit more than those who are hateful and bigotted towards them and would let Judy sit and rot in a hospital bed. So don't sit there and twist God's intent into something you want to believe. After we're all gone and moved on in lives I'm sure we will know whether or not God was displeased with us. And for those who are trying their hardest to keep the others unhappy. I'm sure "He'll" have some pretty strong words for them. God made us human. We are all not perfect by any means. You need to get a clue! God loves all of us whether or not you want to believe that. Yeah, get a clue! BTW - in case you haven't noticed, you are not god and by your posts I'm sure not going to believe anything you have to say as though you know what Gods intents are because you don't. OMG! Are you telling me that N. Korea wouldn't do horrible things to prisoners unless we start it first? Is that what you are saying? Seriously....I'd much rather be a prisoner in Gitmo getting waterboarded than be a prisoner in N. Korea. And honestly.....who the he!! would know what we do to our prisoners unless our brainless wonder of a president didn't decide to broadcast it to the world for his witch hunts. Sheesh. This is what happens when people want to know every little detail during a war. The stuff gets leaked out, our country is torn between the people who agree and the people who don't, and then other countries not only see us fighting amongst ourselves but they also know exactly what we are doing. No one is telling you that you can't have orgies and commit sodomy in your own home till the cows come home. What you do in your own home is your business, not the government's. What rights have been taken from the homosexual community? None that I can see. If you're talking marriage--a man has the right to marry a woman and a woman has the right to marry a man, regardless of your sexual dysfunctions. A Canadian thinks someone else is strange. lol Strange silence now broken. First reaction is if these issues, which have been posted on O's website ever since he launched his campaign, are of such sudden concern to the cons and femocons, why did they not get addressed during the RNC? Do you not see the high-jack strategy as the cons try to talk out of both sides of their mouths and reinvent themselves as the new age liberals? How is this different than the now exposed folly of the compassionate conservative Bush/Cheney ploy? Small business. Either you can't read, you think that we can't or your spin cycle is stuck in high gear. Go here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#small-business. Plans to give tax relief for small businesses and startups, eliminate capital gains taxes on them and provide a $500 new making work pay tax credit (one of many) for workers. For all those IC MTs out there, this is aimed at reducing the burden of double taxation in the current structure where small businesses pay both employer AND employee side of payroll tax. Obama will INVEST $250 million per year in support of entrepreneurship, by creating national network of public-private business incubators to facilitate start-up creation. Your $250,000/yr figure applied to tax cuts on INDIVIDUALS who earn in excess of that amount. Therefore, your offshore, job loss, and massive flight to lower income argument does not hold water on this point. Please cite the right-wing rag you have taken this $6 billion dollar additional tax on small business claim. I'm not finding that in O's plan. The tax breaks to the "lower brackets" (losing their homes, can't decide whether to get medicine or food this month, and if they are lucky, can gas their tank once a month) is addressed below. On the plight of the struggling rich. Define rich, please. From the bottom, INDIVIDUAL incomes in excess of $250,000/yr might look about right. From the top, $5 million a year maybe (one of McC's not-so-funny jokes, some would wonder). The 90% of the federal tax bill claim must be a typo. Go here for 2008 info: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/the_rich_and_their_taxes.html. Our top 1% of filers pay 40% or tax burden. An accurate argument would include these facts as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth. In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. Let's say that one more time. Top 1% gets 38%, bottom 40% get less than 1%. Since they are not earning a living wage, probably that is why they cannot afford to pay tax. Got the picture? There is only one reason our long suffering corporations are taking their business overseas. Greed. They do not want to pay their share and they get tax incentives currently for outsourcing. Do not take us down the path of needing to address sweat shop working conditions, 7-day work weeks, $2/day wages in developing countries where US labor laws do not apply. Greed is not a universal American value.
Preying on discontent, fear and division was a blatent and nauseating subtext for the RNC this entire week. I do agree with inspecting history, and the history that is under the microscope now is Bush/Cheney and JM voting history. Do you really want to bring up govt "borrowing." Again, Bush is the record setter in this regard and while we are talkin' W, don't forget the Bush slash and burn policies toward our seniors. Here's a link for you to a rather exhaustive analysis on 12 reason privatizing social security is a bad idea. http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503. You can get back to me on that one with your rebuttal. My question would be putting WHICH people before WHICH party? Survey Americans on which party they associate election fraud with in the past, say, 30 years or so and tell me what you come up with. So you forgot to mention what JM's plan is on this one. Again, just saying no to personal attacks and steering you back on course. JM's plan for lobbying and earmarks is what exactly. I see O has one. JM hate war? LMAO. So what was all that military service orgie this week all about? The entire McCain family for generations have shown to us just how much they hate war. Where is his war prevention strategy? Did I miss the part where he sang Give Peace a Chance? Sam, really, do you care nothing about your own credibility or that of your candidates? Am laughing too hard to comment further on this. Here's a link for you to serve as a primer on the Patriot Act controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Controversy. Will not address the attempts you are making to minimize the unconstitutional aspect of this legislation. I would like an explanation as to how RNC protestors engaging in destruction of private property, vandalism, resisting arrest, disturbing the peace and such have suddenly been charged with terrorism? The we have not been attacked yet defense does not make me feel warm and fuzzy about standing legislation that violates the constitution 9 ways to Sunday. Far mongering does not a justification make. O's plan demonstrates ways to tackle terrorism that do not involve trashing the constitution.
Your prescription for poverty sounds like it was lifted straight out of O's plan. Read it before you try to claim it for the party who would ridicule it. My post ends here because the remainder of yours is recycled communist/socialist innuendo that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. And the top of the evening to you too, dear. wrong link, very strange (sm) The link to this video is somehow automatically rerouted to a different one so every time I cut and paste it, it goes to the other video. If you search for "I invented the Internet Obama" that is the correct video that I was trying to share. I for one find it strange you lumped all those into nm Strange, the conclusions you jump to about I don't see a child who is born into this world as a tumor........sorry you do. Says tons about your mindset! Why would you want to throw all the immigrants out? If they are here legally, they have every right here. "Illegals" are another thing. BTW, this woman had a free clinic where she could obtain an abortion for FREE.....stop finding excuses for everyone. So - be it sadomasochism, bondage, strange as long as it's between a man and a woman. What about 3-ways? Or wife-swapping? Or polygamy. All normal? What about domestic violence? Is that only 'real' if it's between a man and a woman as well? This poster periodically goes on strange republican rants with 'facts' pulled either from thin air or Fox News.... The majority of it is completely false, so I usually don't even bother to read it. Strange.....why are you so offended by that comment? -- Strange, only ONE person griping.....where were -- Strange, they said they were treated wonderfully.... nm and telling everyone...no demanding that everyone feel the way they do. Yes...ugly and evil. UNPATRIOTIC AND ANTI-AMERICAN. Never, not in any post, did I say God was telling me to do anything... nice smokescreen, but a lie. Apparently some people do need training on the stages of pregnancy when they claim that all is aborted is a "blob" of tissue. That is a way to justify it in minds, yes...but it is not the truth. You would think people would at least want to know what they are supporting or choosing. But it is much more difficult when you assign form, a beating heart, things that signify a living human being. If posts on abortion tire you, for the love of Pete don't read them! How hard is that?? Just pass right on over it. Post the issues that are important to you...like your job, the econonmy, the war, your social security. By the way, while you are researching social security, check what administration had control the first time it was raided to fund other social programs. Again...do not attribute things to me that I did not say. Abortion is a religious issue to some, a moral issue to all. Do you think you have to be "religious," a Christian, or "know God" in order to be pro life? I beg to differ. You obviously are not a religious person, but that does not mean you are not a moral person, does it? Of course not. I believe abortion to be morally wrong, just like I believe capital punishment to be morally wrong. I believe stealing is morally wrong. I believe cheating on your spouse is morally wrong. I believe pedophilia is morally wrong. And you don't have to be "religious" to believe ANY of those things are morally wrong. And if that chaps you, so be it. I don't have to apologize to you for standing against what I believe to be morally wrong. I am tired of being attacked over and over as well, but I guess we will both just have to put up with it, won't we? Yessss, just keep telling yourself that... sm BTW, the GOP already filed a lawsuit in Ohio over this early voting and they lost. Stings doesn't it? Telling someone to "buzz off" is sort of like someone swearing.........it shows a decidedly limited vocabulary. no telling where this will lead. x Rush telling it like it is...(sm) "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream." "The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit. " "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting." --on an ad by Michael J. Fox endorsing Claire McCaskill for Senate for supporting embryonic stem cell research "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation...I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of the need to blow some steam off?" --on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal "And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, "I am addicted to prescription pain medication." "Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population. "One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the "The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them." Awesome leader you have there! Your strange idea of "research" amounts to cut What you really mean is that you agree with her - which is fine as long as you're honest about it. But please don't try to shore up your support by suggesting that her posts have some sort of superior quality to others, because they don't. Would you care for a summary of JTBB's posts? I think you'll be hard-pressed to show why they don't suffer from the very characteristics that you denounce in others. Bottom line: Get real, dude. Nobody's telling her she doesn't have a right to speak.sm She just needs to realize that everyone does not feel the way she does and YES, I have family members who are in Iraq right now who do not support this war, so the OP was not exactly right. My point is, he is telling a different story now... that he is writing a book than he did under oath in front of Congress. There has to be a reason for that. He still says he was wrong in the intelligence, he admits that he said *slam dunk* in reference to WMD, and he said in the congressional hearings that he believed there was WMD. Now he says different. Now he is trying to say that, in so many words, they wanted to go to war so badly that they believed his bad intelligence. That is NUTS, I am sorry, and I don't need a news outlet of any bent to tell me that. I watched him testify before COngress on TV. I know what he said. He is not the only one who believed it...a lot of intelligence agencies all over the world believed it. He just does not want his legacy to be that he gave the wrong intelligence that started the war. Well..too late. He was the head of the CIA and the buck stops there. He has already been caught in two lies. Perle was not even in the country at the time Tenet says he talked to him. Tenet lied. They have the documentation that Perle was in another country for Pete's sake. At this point I don't believe a word the man says. As to Clark...do some research on him and you will see that he was saying the same things as Tenet to the Clinton administration. Guess he believed it when he was saying it, but not when Tenet was saying it. The issue here, however, is not Clark and Powell. It is Tenet. He was the head of the CIA. Either he is lying now in the book or he lied under oath in front of Congress. Either way, he is a liar, in my opinion. |
|||||||
 |
 |
||||||
marks the location of current message within thread
