Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Little Raven, Jan 17, 2006.
"Don't want to pay taxes? Choose Death! In Oregon"
No he isn't. He himself in his own words has said he is NOT a strict constructionist.
What Roberts actually said was that he had no problem with being described as one or I think his words verbatim were that being described as one did not make him feel "uncomfortable" -- this was during the Senate hearings. So it's not quite an emphatic statement that he is one.
Roberts incidentally also declined to say if he was more or less "conservative" than Scalia .... which would suggest that he is either being diplomatic or that he is MORE "conservative" than Scalia!
GOOD FOR YOU!
ANYONE who criticizes ANY of the justices who dissented WITHOUT even READING the decision should be ashamed of themselves. (And no reading an AP report about it does not count!)
It's not a religious persuasion. They are all Catholics and according to Catholicism the issue is not a matter of religious revelation but of the "natural law" -- which is pure philosophy (without recourse to Bible or whatever) ... so if they were influenced on anything, they were influenced by "natural law"
Clarence Thomas btw IS an adherent not only of the philosophical theory of natural law but ALSO the LEGAL theory of natural law -- so Thomas is actually NOT a strict constructionist in the traditional sense since he sees the natural law as being more authoritative than what the legal document. Scalia is NOT an adherent of the LEGAL theory of natural law, but his philosophical views of natural law could certainly have an influence -- JUST AS YOUR philosophical view that say blacks are human beings could influence you or YOUR philosophical view that all men are created equal could influence you (this latter one happens to be in the Declaration -- but it's just an example, there are plenty that are NOT within the Declaration or any other text that enjoys legal favor)
Roberts' views on the interaction between natural law (the metaphysical reality) and human law are unknown.
Thanks. And ANYONE who criticizes any justice -- especially if the criticism is personal or pointed should read it or be ashamed of themselves! (IMO)
I scanned the dissenting opinions and it looks like from a footnote that:
1 Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which Thomas and Roberts both joined
2 Thomas wrote a "concurring" dissenting opinion which was NOT joined by either Scalia or Roberts
So Thomas' dissent was different fundamentally from Roberts' and Scalia's dissent ... which means that if you do not understand how the dissents differed, you shouldn't be criticizing any of those three for anything.
In that sense, you'd think New Hampshire (state motto: "Live Free or Die") would be the state leading the charge here, not Oregon (state motto: "Honk quietly if you love trees"). Okay, seriously, Oregon's state motto is "She Flies With Her Own Wings" and seems better designed for being at the forefront of legalized marijuana battles.
I'd assume you have cites for Thomas' and Scalia's 'natural law' tendencies?
Whups, guess you won't...
Farewell, Cierdan, the luckier among us hardly knew ye.
I've been doing independant research on this topic.
I'm amazed that people think they have the right to stop a suicide attempt, if the suicide attempt is made with full information. Where's the right to self-determination? How much more fundamental can you get?
I cannot see a legitimate reason to punish a doctor for helping someone (who wanted to) die. There's an onus on the doctor to make sure that the condition is not recoverable, sure, but ... wow.
Yes, Dr. Kevorkian will probably die in a Michigan prison for doing something he could not morally object to.
And the judge who convicted him gave him a nice long lecture about how it was really bad of him to flaunt the law, and go on tv and try to make a change.
It's a crying shame. The man is a saint.
I respect a society's rights to make and enforce laws. However, a society that does not allow assisted suicide seems to be peopled by citizens who don't want the right to die, if they so choose.
"El_Mac, do you want the right to die, if you want?"
"Uh, yeah ... um, I don't plan on dying though. But, I can imagine wanting to die, and it being the correct choice for me."
Well, whether laws like it or not, people do have the right to die, and many do it themselves with a firearm, especially when they get older. It's hard to punish someone who has already blown their head off.
Some might just prefer to appear to go to sleep surrounded by their friends and families.
I don't think this is what the argument is about really. It is all connected with the debate on abortion and right to life. It is primarily a religious debate.
Yeah, but citizens make the law ... or at least the law reflects the citizen's desire, right?
Are these just laws that are on the books still? Or are these laws that, like taxes, are because the 'government knows what's best'?
I worry about this world, that someone can praise this as a victory.
Who is it a defeat for really? and why?
It should be a defeat for everyone, to see this sort of crap endorsed by the Court - by a good majority of the Court - and to see phrases like "death with dignity" actually get acknowledged as anything other than rubbish.
Endorsed? I don't remember the Court saying people should do it.
Yes, but why is a defeat?
No, but they said assissted suicide is legitimate.
It's a defeat to the belief that the Supreme Court is better than this.
You're ducking the question. Why is it a defeat?
Er, how many times do I have to restate this:
I, and others, beleive that suicide (assisted or otherwise) is wrong. The Supreme Court accepted it as right. Thus, my belief lost, and the other belief won.
And why do you believe this? What right do you have to impose this belief on others?
Separate names with a comma.