by Matt Barr

Quick hit

Pun while not intended not disavowed. I'm still on the road and still not immersed in the news of the week, but I see via Prof. Althouse that the Supreme Court has granted cert. in the Oregon assisted suicide case. Oregon's law, about which I wrote at length in 2001, doesn't inspire me to philosophize about federalism, for a couple reasons.

One, the "Ashcroft Directive" (what a loaded term!) simply reversed an affirmative policy choice of the Reno Justice Department -- it was no novel departure itself; it restored the status quo. Whether that status quo squares with proper federalism principles is indeed a fascinating question, but the way this has been portrayed as a results-oriented, unprincipled Bush administration socking it to the states is dishonest. I've found that (to my mind, tangential) subplot taints discussion too often.

Two, it's impossible for me to get beyond what I consider the more serious issue: that Oregon's assisted suicide law is wildly defective in terms of protecting the lives of the elderly and infirm. I would fear for my life in old age and the lives of my loved ones if such a law were in force where I am. I explain in detail in the article linked above, and imagine I'll have more to say later in the week.

In the meantime, for legal analysis, Prof. Althouse has had more to say, and chances are SCOTUSblog, JurisPundit and possibly Findlaw's Writ will comment. For policy commentary, you can probably try your luck at most any conservative blog (libertarian, too).

Browse books from Amazon.com: