http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/assisted.suicide.ap/index.html
Notice the dissents? What a trio of lying assholes.
Notice the dissents? What a trio of lying assholes.
States' Rights? Like activist judge, it's a code word, nothing more.
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
States rights are only valid when they fall in line with the current administration.
That was pretty clear in the schiavo mess.
Lying? How can an interpretation of complex law be considered lying? In essence this case is about the meaning of "legitmate medical purpose." Is providing a prescription for self administered suicide a "legitimate medical purpose."?
What' funny is the divergence of both sides from their previous decision in Raich.
What' funny is the divergence of both sides from their previous decision in Raich.
Here is how: We've got three guys who get up and bang the drum for States' Rights whenever they agree with a case. As soon as they don't, it is "**** states' rights, the Federal goverment has the authority!"DRB said:
Now, you're right, it probably isn't lying. Because if you read between the lines, you know that States' Rights coming out of a conservative mouth really means no women, no fags, no niggers, and no cripples need apply.
Of course, I'd also argue that three upstanding Catholic men should follow the spirit of the law when it comes to the ninth commandment, instead of the letter.
I think the lying here occurred when Roberts said he would be impartial, whereas now it's obvious he will always do what his butt-buddy Bush tells him to do. Roberts is how Bush will continue to f*ck with all of us after his sorry ass administration's time is over.DRB said:
So just because he doesn't agree with you that means he isn't impartial?Echo said:
That is a load of crap.
Being impartial doesn't mean not having opinions... apparently, he made it pretty clear in his confirmation what he thought of federal rights in this case during his hearings. Bush nominated him because their views align, not because he could be manipulated, which in my opinion is much worse since it means Bush's legacy will last far beyond his presidency.Echo said:
I didn't make any statement regarding my opinion on the matter, so how would you know if he agrees with me or not?DRB said:
My opinion is that he is not impartial and never will be.
Then no one on the court is impartial.Echo said:
I suppose if you feel that Roberts was a good choice then there is no convincing you otherwise. I don't think he was a good choice and you aren't going to convince me otherwise.DRB said:
The supreme court justices all have their biases, and as a whole I think our system of government is flawed so the supreme court is flawed too. But putting that right wing extremist in there just made it more flawed than it already was.
And in the 2000 election.kidwoo said:
And when Ginsburg was appointed the conservatives said the EXACT samething. How am I to take any of you seriously?Echo said:
I feel that he is no different than Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy or Ginsburg. Shoot he is a near carbon copy of Rehnquist.
When the citizens in a state pass a law saying that a doctor is allowed to help a terminally ill patient end their life by prescribing drugs, it becomes a legitimate medical use.
The current administration is trying to play both sides of the board, "states rights" when it allows mining companies to expliot natural areas, or they can't get a law passed, or want to be re-elected. Not "states rights" when the states disagree with a value judgement by the administration, like bulldozing peoples houses, allowing medical MJ, or right to die.
The current administration is trying to play both sides of the board, "states rights" when it allows mining companies to expliot natural areas, or they can't get a law passed, or want to be re-elected. Not "states rights" when the states disagree with a value judgement by the administration, like bulldozing peoples houses, allowing medical MJ, or right to die.