US Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Euthanasina Law

I don't know what to make of this, as details are not flowing at the moment. 6-3, CJ Roberts dissenting in his first SCOTUS case on ethics. Hopefully, I'll be able to update soon.

UPDATE 1: The Three Musketeers (CJ Roberts, AJs Scalia and Thomas) all dissent in the case, which now appears to me less an "ethics" case than a federal versus state power case. Of course, if that were true, the 3Ms would obviously have come down on the side of the state, right? They didn't. They came down on the side of the federal government, opining that the federal government does have a legitimate interest, despite Scalia's own admission that the majority opinion

is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the federal government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position.

Well, yeah.

And just in case you were thinking that CJ Roberts was a better man than his predecessor, here:

Justices have dealt with end-of-life cases before. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill people may refuse treatment that would otherwise keep them alive. Then, justices in 1997 unanimously ruled that people have no constitutional right to die, upholding state bans on physician-assisted suicide. That opinion, by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said individual states could decide to allow the practice.

I'm certain I'll have more to write later.