Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Feb 22, 2005 11:27:46 GMT -5
Recall the Bush administration complaint in the whole gay marriage mess that the problem was "activist judges legislating from the bench" against the will of the people, when they ruled that the government was not allowed to prevent gay people from getting married, thereby effectively legalizing gay marriage (although, technically, it was affirming that gay marriage has been legal all along and that the government didn't have the right to prevent it, but we'll ignore that aspect).
Regardless, the main problem, apparently, was activist judges making legislation.
Now jump to today: the Supreme Court has announced that it will review the case of Oregon's assisted suicide law, that passed overwhelmingly in a state referendum. The people in the state of Oregon have stated they want this assisted suicide law, but the opponents want the judges to overturn it, ignoring the overwhelming public sentiment in the state of Oregon in favor of it, making assisted suicide illegal in the state of Oregon.
Who are these opponents who want these activist judges to effectively create legislation that would make assisted suicide illegal in Oregon over the wishes of the people? The petition to the Supreme Court was filed by none other than Jon Ashcroft, on behalf of the Bush administration.
It just goes to show that the Bush adminstration in the gay marriage cases had NOTHING to do with "activist judges" because they seem to have no problem with activist judges when it suits their needs.
Of course, the bigger question in this case is a states rights issue. Previously, the Supreme Court _has_ ruled that states are allowed to pass anti-assisted suicide laws, and in that case their ruling was based on the fact that it was a state issue and not a matter for the federal government. So that is Oregon's argument, that it is a state issue, and the federal government does not have jurisdiction. OTOH, the republican administration (you know, the one that claims it wants a smaller government with less government intrusion in our lives) thinks it can force federal laws on the state.
The question is, do they even see the can of worms they open themselves? If the supremes DO rule in favor of the feds (although I can't imagine it will be close), then the next thing that is going to happen is that the old case is going to be reopened, and that all the state anti-suicide laws are going to be challenged on the grounds that there is federal protection.
Regardless, the main problem, apparently, was activist judges making legislation.
Now jump to today: the Supreme Court has announced that it will review the case of Oregon's assisted suicide law, that passed overwhelmingly in a state referendum. The people in the state of Oregon have stated they want this assisted suicide law, but the opponents want the judges to overturn it, ignoring the overwhelming public sentiment in the state of Oregon in favor of it, making assisted suicide illegal in the state of Oregon.
Who are these opponents who want these activist judges to effectively create legislation that would make assisted suicide illegal in Oregon over the wishes of the people? The petition to the Supreme Court was filed by none other than Jon Ashcroft, on behalf of the Bush administration.
It just goes to show that the Bush adminstration in the gay marriage cases had NOTHING to do with "activist judges" because they seem to have no problem with activist judges when it suits their needs.
Of course, the bigger question in this case is a states rights issue. Previously, the Supreme Court _has_ ruled that states are allowed to pass anti-assisted suicide laws, and in that case their ruling was based on the fact that it was a state issue and not a matter for the federal government. So that is Oregon's argument, that it is a state issue, and the federal government does not have jurisdiction. OTOH, the republican administration (you know, the one that claims it wants a smaller government with less government intrusion in our lives) thinks it can force federal laws on the state.
The question is, do they even see the can of worms they open themselves? If the supremes DO rule in favor of the feds (although I can't imagine it will be close), then the next thing that is going to happen is that the old case is going to be reopened, and that all the state anti-suicide laws are going to be challenged on the grounds that there is federal protection.
