John Roberts: we\'ll know immediately
 

His first ruling will give away the game. If he rules for the govt we can write off the next 30 years.

Either he really is a consitutionalist who believes in a reduced federal government, or he is a stooge for the big government statists. I suspect the latter, but here's to the triumph of hope over experience. It's nice that we'll know right off.

natedogg

Re: John Roberts: we\'ll know immediately
 

edit: I am an idiot and wasnt paying attention. I apologize. OF course with this ruling it will become pretty implicit, I thought you meant with a ruling on any subject.

Re: John Roberts: we\'ll know immediately
 

Well ... the subject they're hearing today is pretty clear cut. Probably won't have a ruling for 6 mos. though ...

Re: John Roberts: we\'ll know immediately
 

What is today's case?

Re: John Roberts: we\'ll know immediately
 

Oregon has passed an assisted suicide law. I've only read the summary -- it's application is very restricted, a lot of monitoring -- and it has passed the referendum process twice. The Feds are arguing it's illegal based upon the fact that they will be using federally regulated drugs in an unapproved manner.

Re: John Roberts: we\'ll know immediately
 

Thanks!

Re: John Roberts: we\'ll know immediately
 

Go Go Commerce Clause
Is there anything is can't do (I'm serious)

Re: John Roberts: we\'ll know immediately
 

[ QUOTE ]
Go Go Commerce Clause
Is there anything it can't do (I'm serious)

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you're serious.
Is there anything it can't do?
I give up. What?

an unencouraging quote
 

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/...sisted_suicide


Roberts repeatedly raised concerns 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.

Re: John Roberts: we\'ll know immediately
 

The fact that he seems to be leaning towards ruling for Federal jurisdiction here over state jurisdiction in THIS CASE does not tell you whether he is truly a strict constructionist.

Does your hatred of a federal interference in this case also extend to a powerful state government? I don't see how transferring the power over assisted suicides from the feds to the states makes individual citizens any freer.

How's about the government just butts out if someone wishes to die and another agrees to help him? Cause if my state outlaws that I would argue that my county or my city should each be able to make that determination itself. Where does it end?

[ QUOTE ]
His first ruling will give away the game. If he rules for the govt we can write off the next 30 years.

Either he really is a consitutionalist who believes in a reduced federal government, or he is a stooge for the big government statists. I suspect the latter, but here's to the triumph of hope over experience. It's nice that we'll know right off.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]