The Roberts' Court..which way does the wind blow?

One of the first tests of the Roberts' court will be Oregon's assisted suicide law. Oregonians have approved the law twice, the first time in 1994. Radical religious extremists have been trying to get it overturned since it was passed and when one of their own became attorney general, John Ashcroft, he took time out of his busy schedule of trying to halt abortions to rule the law illegal. The lower courts have all decided in favor of the Oregon voters. The Oregonian has both a front page story and a commentary on the implications of the laws hearing before the new Supreme Court. There is a great deal more involved that assisted suicide.

As the new chief justice of the United States, John Roberts will cut his teeth this week on Oregon's assisted-suicide law. The case of Gonzales v. Oregon, scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, will allow Roberts to express his brand of conservatism -- and to reveal his potential influence on generations to come.

If Roberts is a stealth social conservative, he'll side with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Bush administration. But if he's the kind of judge he appears to be, he'll favor Oregon and persuade his peers to do the same.

It is a question of authority; Attorney General John Ashcroft and now AG Alberto Gonzales claim the federal government has the right to overturn the Oregon law under Controlled Substances Act.

In truth, the federal Controlled Substances Act was passed to fight drug trafficking, not to regulate doctors. The traditional power to oversee the practice of medicine lies with states, not the federal government. Oregon has voted repeatedly to allow terminally ill people to obtain lethal prescriptions from their doctors, under strict guidelines.

Gonzales and his predecessor, John Ashcroft, are in the wrong. The Justice Department has clearly overstepped its authority by trying to stretch federal drug laws to accommodate personal beliefs and political agendas.

Sounds simple, right? Maybe not.

But the ruling may be influenced by broader issues -- states' rights, the right to die and the war on drugs -- says Richard Saphire, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Dayton School of Law in Ohio.

[.....]


Federal lawyers agree that the Controlled Substances Act doesn't specifically address assisted suicide. But they say the court should defer to the attorney general's interpretation that prescribing lethal doses is not a legitimate medical practice.

By contrast, assisted-suicide supporters say the federal government cannot draw such an interpretation from a statute that was designed to combat illegal drug diversion and trafficking.

A Conservative VS Liberal issue? Maybe not.

Earlier this year, for example, three of the most conservative justices backed California's medical-marijuana law by saying it was a states' rights issue. The more liberal members opposed the law in favor of federal authority.

A ruling in favor of Oregon could also put into question laws determined to be legal based on expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause. So is Roberts a conservative in the original sense or an ideologue? We may find it's an ill wind regardless of which way it blows.

Note
I have more on this over at Running Scared