Thursday, October 06, 2005
Euthanasia and the Supreme Court
As the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments for Gonzales v. Oregon, two views of the court's response emerged. The Telegragh saw new Chief Justice John Roberts as defending the government's right to curb euthanasia. But in fact based on their quote, all he was defending was the right of the government to regulate the use of drugs:
Mr Roberts, 50, who was sworn in last week, dominated proceedings almost from their outset.
His principal argument was that to make Oregon an exception could undermine the federal regulation of addictive drugs including steroids and painkillers.
Even as Oregon's senior assistant attorney general, Robert Atkinson, was making his opening remarks, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted him to ask: "Doesn't that undermine and make enforcement possible?"
His performance won high marks from the American Right who saw it as an early sign that the court would be in good hands.
The article also had this interesting aside:
The case is particularly sensitive for the court as three of the nine justices have cancer and a fourth has a spouse who looks after children with terminal illnesses.
Overall it was more bad journalism which seems to be the rule in the UK press. Their bias towards the euthanasia agenda steamrolls over the fact that this case is about the rule of law.
From another perspective, The Family Research Council issed a press release expressing it's concern over the response of the more liberal judges in the Supreme Court.
"After hearing oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court today we are profoundly concerned that at least three members of the Court appear to be looking for a way to legalize euthanasia. Questioning from Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens indicated receptivity to arguments that would take America down this dangerous path," said Patrick Trueman, Senior Legal Counsel for Family Research Council (FRC).
"To pervert the medical profession so that it becomes one of killing rather than healing poses a danger to everyone, particularly the disabled. It is significant that protesters from the disabled community were out in force on the steps of the Supreme Court today," said Bill Saunders, FRC's Human Rights Counsel.
"The assistant attorney general for Oregon admitted, under skillful questioning from Chief Justice John Roberts, that Oregon's interpretation of the federal statute would permit a state to allow doctors to disburse morphine as a recreational drug. This statement undermines his case by demonstrating how absurd Oregon's view of the law is," said Trueman.
The case, Gonzales v. Oregon, concerns whether doctors in Oregon can use federally controlled drugs to kill patients. Family Research Council filed a brief with the high court arguing that the federal Controlled Substances Act gives the Attorney General of the United States the authority to stop the misuse of dangerous drugs.
FRC at least makes its bias clear, which is more than can be said of the MSM.
Mr Roberts, 50, who was sworn in last week, dominated proceedings almost from their outset.
His principal argument was that to make Oregon an exception could undermine the federal regulation of addictive drugs including steroids and painkillers.
Even as Oregon's senior assistant attorney general, Robert Atkinson, was making his opening remarks, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted him to ask: "Doesn't that undermine and make enforcement possible?"
His performance won high marks from the American Right who saw it as an early sign that the court would be in good hands.
The article also had this interesting aside:
The case is particularly sensitive for the court as three of the nine justices have cancer and a fourth has a spouse who looks after children with terminal illnesses.
Overall it was more bad journalism which seems to be the rule in the UK press. Their bias towards the euthanasia agenda steamrolls over the fact that this case is about the rule of law.
From another perspective, The Family Research Council issed a press release expressing it's concern over the response of the more liberal judges in the Supreme Court.
"After hearing oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court today we are profoundly concerned that at least three members of the Court appear to be looking for a way to legalize euthanasia. Questioning from Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Stevens indicated receptivity to arguments that would take America down this dangerous path," said Patrick Trueman, Senior Legal Counsel for Family Research Council (FRC).
"To pervert the medical profession so that it becomes one of killing rather than healing poses a danger to everyone, particularly the disabled. It is significant that protesters from the disabled community were out in force on the steps of the Supreme Court today," said Bill Saunders, FRC's Human Rights Counsel.
"The assistant attorney general for Oregon admitted, under skillful questioning from Chief Justice John Roberts, that Oregon's interpretation of the federal statute would permit a state to allow doctors to disburse morphine as a recreational drug. This statement undermines his case by demonstrating how absurd Oregon's view of the law is," said Trueman.
The case, Gonzales v. Oregon, concerns whether doctors in Oregon can use federally controlled drugs to kill patients. Family Research Council filed a brief with the high court arguing that the federal Controlled Substances Act gives the Attorney General of the United States the authority to stop the misuse of dangerous drugs.
FRC at least makes its bias clear, which is more than can be said of the MSM.
papijoe 5:59 AM
|