i'm not the only one...
Jan. 20th, 2006 11:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearWell, I'm not the only one who saw the conflict between "States Rights" and "Authoritative Executive Branch" and how 3 judges have made it extremely clear which is more important to them (2 of them expected, the other could have ended up either way, but now we know where he really stands).
But Scalia, Roberts and Thomas would claim the right to impose this view [doctors should not have the right to help people kill themselves] on Oregon. As Scalia himself writes, the legitimacy of physician-assisted suicide "ultimately rests, not on 'science' or 'medicine,' but on a naked value judgment." Yes, and why should Ashcroft and the Bush administration be able to cast aside the decision of Oregon's voters and insist upon their own "naked value judgment"? Isn't it strange that those who advocate for states' rights on so many issues, including abortion, then turn around and endorse the most expansive use of federal power to advance their own preferences?
...
It cannot have been lost on senators [...] that the recently confirmed Roberts, for all his charming and intelligent talk about judicial restraint at his Senate hearings, cast his first dissent with the court's most activist conservatives.
-- E. J. Dionne Jr.
I really respect his last statement: As it happens, assisted suicide is one issue on which my beliefs coincide with those of many conservatives. But I want my view to prevail through persuasion in the democratic process, not because an attorney general and sympathetic judges impose it on every state in the Union.
But Scalia, Roberts and Thomas would claim the right to impose this view [doctors should not have the right to help people kill themselves] on Oregon. As Scalia himself writes, the legitimacy of physician-assisted suicide "ultimately rests, not on 'science' or 'medicine,' but on a naked value judgment." Yes, and why should Ashcroft and the Bush administration be able to cast aside the decision of Oregon's voters and insist upon their own "naked value judgment"? Isn't it strange that those who advocate for states' rights on so many issues, including abortion, then turn around and endorse the most expansive use of federal power to advance their own preferences?
...
It cannot have been lost on senators [...] that the recently confirmed Roberts, for all his charming and intelligent talk about judicial restraint at his Senate hearings, cast his first dissent with the court's most activist conservatives.
-- E. J. Dionne Jr.
I really respect his last statement: As it happens, assisted suicide is one issue on which my beliefs coincide with those of many conservatives. But I want my view to prevail through persuasion in the democratic process, not because an attorney general and sympathetic judges impose it on every state in the Union.
