Mickey Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 The republicans in general, and in particular this administration and the former attorney general are dedicated to states rights unless of course you are dealing with the right of the state of Oregon to govern the practice of medicine within its borders. The now infamous "Ascroft Directive", more of a "dictat" really, tried to use the Controlled Substances Act and his twisted interpretation of it to render unto himself the power to overturn not one but two ballot measures approved by the voters of the state of Oregon approving, under the narrowest of circumstances, physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill. He basically ruled that a law enacted to prevent criminal doctors from using their power to write prescriptions to become legal drug dealers gave him the authority to go after any doctor who, fully in accordance with state law, prescribed drugs in a lethal dose as part of a physician assisted suicide. He was stopped by the federal courts and with an election coming, he backed off. However, the deadline for filing an appeal with the Supreme Court was today and lo and behold, now that the election is over and there is no need to worry about offending voters in Oregon, a "swing" state, the appeal was filed. I would indeed be a rich man if only I had a dime or two for every time I have read on this board how Kerry would do anything to get elected and took this or that position in a craven attempt to get votes. Apparently, the Bush administration is not above the same tactics, withholding its appeal until after the election to keep from ticking of Oregonians who, last time out, approved the assisted suicide measure overwhelmingly (60-40%). I guess it is a travesty to have judges deciding cases but as long as he makes the decision you want, it is perfectly okay for a political appointee to, in emperor like fashion, void the results of two state elections and reverse the universally and long held precedent that states and not the government (let alone an agency appointee) govern the practice of medicine within their own borders. How nice for us that a political hack appointee can decide for us against our will that if we are terminally ill and facing months of agonizing, unending pain, we can't die with some dignity and, with the help of a physician, as painlessly as possible. The biggest lie in politics is that Republicans are for less government interference in our lives and Democrats for more. It depends on the issue at stake. In some cases, like this issue, Republicans have no problem with big, intrusive, freedom sapping government trampling over the rights of the states. Sure there are issues where it is the Democrats that want bigger government but they have not cornered the market on that widget. Not by a long shot. Good riddance Mr. Ashcroft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 The republicans in general, and in particular this administration and the former attorney general are dedicated to states rights unless of course you are dealing with the right of the state of Oregon to govern the practice of medicine within its borders. The now infamous "Ascroft Directive", more of a "dictat" really, tried to use the Controlled Substances Act and his twisted interpretation of it to render unto himself the power to overturn not one but two ballot measures approved by the voters of the state of Oregon approving, under the narrowest of circumstances, physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill. He basically ruled that a law enacted to prevent criminal doctors from using their power to write prescriptions to become legal drug dealers gave him the authority to go after any doctor who, fully in accordance with state law, prescribed drugs in a lethal dose as part of a physician assisted suicide. He was stopped by the federal courts and with an election coming, he backed off. However, the deadline for filing an appeal with the Supreme Court was today and lo and behold, now that the election is over and there is no need to worry about offending voters in Oregon, a "swing" state, the appeal was filed. I would indeed be a rich man if only I had a dime or two for every time I have read on this board how Kerry would do anything to get elected and took this or that position in a craven attempt to get votes. Apparently, the Bush administration is not above the same tactics, withholding its appeal until after the election to keep from ticking of Oregonians who, last time out, approved the assisted suicide measure overwhelmingly (60-40%). I guess it is a travesty to have judges deciding cases but as long as he makes the decision you want, it is perfectly okay for a political appointee to, in emperor like fashion, void the results of two state elections and reverse the universally and long held precedent that states and not the government (let alone an agency appointee) govern the practice of medicine within their own borders. How nice for us that a political hack appointee can decide for us against our will that if we are terminally ill and facing months of agonizing, unending pain, we can't die with some dignity and, with the help of a physician, as painlessly as possible. The biggest lie in politics is that Republicans are for less government interference in our lives and Democrats for more. It depends on the issue at stake. In some cases, like this issue, Republicans have no problem with big, intrusive, freedom sapping government trampling over the rights of the states. Sure there are issues where it is the Democrats that want bigger government but they have not cornered the market on that widget. Not by a long shot. Good riddance Mr. Ashcroft. 110794[/snapback] Mickey...May I say that your posts give great validity and credibility to this forum...I really enjoy reading your post..i learn alot from them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 The republicans in general, and in particular this administration and the former attorney general are dedicated to states rights unless of course you are dealing with the right of the state of Oregon to govern the practice of medicine within its borders. The now infamous "Ascroft Directive", more of a "dictat" really, tried to use the Controlled Substances Act and his twisted interpretation of it to render unto himself the power to overturn not one but two ballot measures approved by the voters of the state of Oregon approving, under the narrowest of circumstances, physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill. He basically ruled that a law enacted to prevent criminal doctors from using their power to write prescriptions to become legal drug dealers gave him the authority to go after any doctor who, fully in accordance with state law, prescribed drugs in a lethal dose as part of a physician assisted suicide. He was stopped by the federal courts and with an election coming, he backed off. However, the deadline for filing an appeal with the Supreme Court was today and lo and behold, now that the election is over and there is no need to worry about offending voters in Oregon, a "swing" state, the appeal was filed. I would indeed be a rich man if only I had a dime or two for every time I have read on this board how Kerry would do anything to get elected and took this or that position in a craven attempt to get votes. Apparently, the Bush administration is not above the same tactics, withholding its appeal until after the election to keep from ticking of Oregonians who, last time out, approved the assisted suicide measure overwhelmingly (60-40%). I guess it is a travesty to have judges deciding cases but as long as he makes the decision you want, it is perfectly okay for a political appointee to, in emperor like fashion, void the results of two state elections and reverse the universally and long held precedent that states and not the government (let alone an agency appointee) govern the practice of medicine within their own borders. How nice for us that a political hack appointee can decide for us against our will that if we are terminally ill and facing months of agonizing, unending pain, we can't die with some dignity and, with the help of a physician, as painlessly as possible. The biggest lie in politics is that Republicans are for less government interference in our lives and Democrats for more. It depends on the issue at stake. In some cases, like this issue, Republicans have no problem with big, intrusive, freedom sapping government trampling over the rights of the states. Sure there are issues where it is the Democrats that want bigger government but they have not cornered the market on that widget. Not by a long shot. Good riddance Mr. Ashcroft. 110794[/snapback] Yeah, I'm really going to miss him too. Have a nice vacation, Mr. Attorney General. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 Yeah, I'm really going to miss him too. Have a nice vacation, Mr. Attorney General. 110805[/snapback] No kidding. Ashcroft made Chief Justice Marshall look like a friggen southern secessionist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 The republicans in general, and in particular this administration and the former attorney general are dedicated to states rights unless of course you are dealing with the right of the state of Oregon to govern the practice of medicine within its borders. The now infamous "Ascroft Directive", more of a "dictat" really, tried to use the Controlled Substances Act and his twisted interpretation of it to render unto himself the power to overturn not one but two ballot measures approved by the voters of the state of Oregon approving, under the narrowest of circumstances, physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill. He basically ruled that a law enacted to prevent criminal doctors from using their power to write prescriptions to become legal drug dealers gave him the authority to go after any doctor who, fully in accordance with state law, prescribed drugs in a lethal dose as part of a physician assisted suicide. He was stopped by the federal courts and with an election coming, he backed off. However, the deadline for filing an appeal with the Supreme Court was today and lo and behold, now that the election is over and there is no need to worry about offending voters in Oregon, a "swing" state, the appeal was filed. I would indeed be a rich man if only I had a dime or two for every time I have read on this board how Kerry would do anything to get elected and took this or that position in a craven attempt to get votes. Apparently, the Bush administration is not above the same tactics, withholding its appeal until after the election to keep from ticking of Oregonians who, last time out, approved the assisted suicide measure overwhelmingly (60-40%). I guess it is a travesty to have judges deciding cases but as long as he makes the decision you want, it is perfectly okay for a political appointee to, in emperor like fashion, void the results of two state elections and reverse the universally and long held precedent that states and not the government (let alone an agency appointee) govern the practice of medicine within their own borders. How nice for us that a political hack appointee can decide for us against our will that if we are terminally ill and facing months of agonizing, unending pain, we can't die with some dignity and, with the help of a physician, as painlessly as possible. The biggest lie in politics is that Republicans are for less government interference in our lives and Democrats for more. It depends on the issue at stake. In some cases, like this issue, Republicans have no problem with big, intrusive, freedom sapping government trampling over the rights of the states. Sure there are issues where it is the Democrats that want bigger government but they have not cornered the market on that widget. Not by a long shot. Good riddance Mr. Ashcroft. 110794[/snapback] States' rights? Never heard of it...before my time. And physician-assisted suicide...tell me, if that's a "state's right", how in the hell is that going to mesh with the typical Democratic "universal health care" platform? Shouldn't individual health care itself be handled at the state level? Once it's elevated to the federal level...how is that in principle any different from dictating physician-assisted suicide at the federal level? The simple fact is: neither one of these parties is for states' rights. But even so...Ashcroft's a pimp. I won't miss him. Hope that case gets dismissed with prejudice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 The republicans in general, and in particular this administration and the former attorney general are dedicated to states rights unless of course you are dealing with the right of the state of Oregon to govern the practice of medicine within its borders. Good riddance Mr. Ashcroft. 110794[/snapback] You KNOW IT WAS COMING!!!!! What is good for the goose (banning same-sex marriages) is NEVER good for the gander (telling Oregon they can't pass partial assisted suicide). FUNNY how states rights go out the window then... hypocrisy... what a shock! Ashcroft leaving for a bad reason, but I echo your sentiments. Good riddance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 You KNOW IT WAS COMING!!!!! What is good for the goose (banning same-sex marriages) is NEVER good for the gander (telling Oregon they can't pass partial assisted suicide). FUNNY how states rights go out the window then... hypocrisy... what a shock! Ashcroft leaving for a bad reason, but I echo your sentiments. Good riddance. 110882[/snapback] You voted for the biggest hypocrite currently serving an elected position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 10, 2004 Author Share Posted November 10, 2004 States' rights? Never heard of it...before my time. And physician-assisted suicide...tell me, if that's a "state's right", how in the hell is that going to mesh with the typical Democratic "universal health care" platform? Shouldn't individual health care itself be handled at the state level? Once it's elevated to the federal level...how is that in principle any different from dictating physician-assisted suicide at the federal level? The simple fact is: neither one of these parties is for states' rights. But even so...Ashcroft's a pimp. I won't miss him. Hope that case gets dismissed with prejudice. 110862[/snapback] I suggest you read the opinions inolved in the case: District Court Decision Circuit Court Decision If you only have time to read one, read the Circuit Court Opinion. It explains the law here pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 You voted for the biggest hypocrite currently serving an elected position. 110885[/snapback] I did NOT vote for Ted Kennedy, thank you very MUCH!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 10, 2004 Share Posted November 10, 2004 I suggest you read the opinions inolved in the case: District Court Decision Circuit Court Decision If you only have time to read one, read the Circuit Court Opinion. It explains the law here pretty well. 110918[/snapback] I only just got through the first three pages of the first link, and noticed that the federal organizations involved are Justice and the DEA...and then read "assisting suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose". What the !@#$? Who gave Justice and the DEA the right to practice medicine now? I'll be sure to read the Circuit Court decision, though. Thanks for the links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 I only just got through the first three pages of the first link, and noticed that the federal organizations involved are Justice and the DEA...and then read "assisting suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose". What the !@#$? Who gave Justice and the DEA the right to practice medicine now? I'll be sure to read the Circuit Court decision, though. Thanks for the links. 111192[/snapback] Looking forward to when Ashcroft is on the supreme court or one who thinks just like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Looking forward to when Ashcroft is on the supreme court or one who thinks just like him. 112213[/snapback] When you have a microchip implanted in your body and your house gets accidentally searched and your posessions ruffled through like a Gestapo team, you'll change your tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 When you have a microchip implanted in your body and your house gets accidentally searched and your posessions ruffled through like a Gestapo team, you'll change your tune. 112730[/snapback] No problems. Just release about 1500 calico cats and watch Asscroft melt down. I thought it was black cats that were bad but somewhere in HIS Bible, it's calico. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts