New Chief Justice is not our friend

Note this line from the story below about today's Supreme Court
hearing on Oregon's assisted suicide law:

Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and
thrust himself in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised
concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive
drugs.

-- Bruce Mirken, Director of Communications
-- Marijuana Policy Project
-- P.O. Box 77492 -- Capitol Hill -- Washington, D.C. 20013
-- http://www.mpp.org -- Bruce.Mirken [at] MPP.ORG
-- phone 202-543-7972 or 415-668-6403 (office) -- 202-215-4205 (cell)

Please visit http://www.mpp.org/subscribe to sign up for MPP's free e-
mail alerts.

http://www.picayuneitem.com/articles/2005/10/05/ap/headlines/
d8d23sd01.txt

High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide

By GINA HOLLAND
Wednesday, October 5, 2005 4:05 PM CDT

WASHINGTON - New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday
as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-
assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law
that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives.

The justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has
the final say on the life-or-death issue.

It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness.
Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after
battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and
a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer.

The outcome is hard to predict, in part because of the uncertain
status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who seemed ready to
support Oregon's law. Her replacement may be confirmed before the
ruling is handed down, possibly months from now.

Roberts repeatedly raised concerns that a single exception for Oregon
would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules for steroids,
painkillers and other drugs.

The Supreme Court eight years ago found that the dying have no
constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O'Connor provided a
key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state
experimentation.

The new case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney
General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's conservative
religious supporters. Hastening someone's death is an improper use of
medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001,
an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet
Reno in the Clinton administration.

Oregon won a lawsuit in a lower court over its voter-approved law,
which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people.

The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided in hearing the Bush
administration's appeal.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has had colon cancer, talked about
medicines that make a sick person's final moments more comfortable.
Justice David Souter, in an emotional moment, said that it's one
thing for the government to ban date rape drugs and harmful products
but "that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here."

On the other side, Roberts and Antonin Scalia appeared skeptical of
Oregon's claims that states have the sole authority to regulate the
practice of medicine.

Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and
thrust himself in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised
concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive
drugs. Before Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert
Atkinson could finish his first sentence Roberts interrupted with the
first of many questions.

"Doesn't that undermine and make enforcement impossible?" he asked
Atkinson. He posed just two questions of the Bush administration lawyer.

At one point, a flustered Atkinson said, "I'm starting to be backed
into a corner."

"I was wondering if the new chief would hold back and wouldn't ruffle
other people's feathers. It appears clear he's not waiting for
anything or anyone," said Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke
University and a former Supreme Court clerk.

The two justices who seemed most conflicted were Anthony Kennedy and
Stephen Breyer. Breyer's wife counsels young cancer patients. Besides
Ginsburg, the justices who have had cancer are O'Connor and John Paul
Stevens.

"It's a tough case," Kennedy told the Bush administration's lawyer,
and later he asked about the "serious consequences" of curbing
federal government authority in regulating drugs.

Solicitor General Paul Clement said Congress was concerned about drug
overdoses and suicides.

Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his usual practice, asked no
questions. He could be sympathetic to Oregon. He was one of three
justices who said in a summer decision that the federal government
should not interfere with state medical marijuana laws. The other two
were O'Connor and Rehnquist.

If O'Connor is the deciding vote in the case, the court would
probably delay the decision and schedule a new argument session after
the arrival of the new justice. On Monday Bush named White House
lawyer Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor.

Dozens of spectators gathered outside the court, waving signs
supporting and opposing the Oregon law. "My Life, My Death, My
Choice," read one sign. "Oregon Law Protects Doctors, Not Patients,"
said another.

Oregon is the only state with an assisted suicide law, but other
states may pass their own if the court rules in the state's favor.

The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

Associated Press Writer Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

A service of the Associated Press(AP)