Have we created a monster?


PDA






Beren
January 17, 2006, 11:58 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10891536/

Scalia, writing the dissent, said that federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine.

Scalia's /reasons/ for dissenting frighten me, regardless of whether or not I agree with assisted suicide. How far have we fallen that a Supreme Court judge - one considered a "conservative" at that - believes the federal government has the power to regulate "the doling out of medicine?"

If you enjoyed reading about "Have we created a monster?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Waitone
January 17, 2006, 12:01 PM
Rest assured that any judge hoping for a gig on the supreme court will be a statist of some form. Constitutionalists, originists, whatever is irrelevant. Supreme court justices will do nothing to curb the power of the state. Likewise, they will do nothing to curb the power of the chief executive.

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 12:04 PM
I've got stronger mixed opinions on Scalia than any other human being. He's smart, funny, and when he's right, he's dead-nuts right. But he has a totalitarian bent that scares the bejeezus out of me sometimes, and he places way too much authority in the executive branch.

taliv
January 17, 2006, 12:12 PM
link no worky


edit: i browsed and found the article. it is disturbing that roberts and thomas and scalia all opposed it. hopefully someone will do a better job of reporting it than msnbc

Master Blaster
January 17, 2006, 12:23 PM
Scalia's /reasons/ for dissenting frighten me, regardless of whether or not I agree with assisted suicide. How far have we fallen that a Supreme Court judge - one considered a "conservative" at that - believes the federal government has the power to regulate "the doling out of medicine?"

The Key word Here is DOLE

If the government is paying for it Medicare/Medicaid then they can regulate its distribution.

USMCRotrHed
January 17, 2006, 12:28 PM
Rest assured that any judge hoping for a gig on the supreme court will be a statist of some form. Constitutionalists, originists, whatever is irrelevant. Supreme court justices will do nothing to curb the power of the state.

Not True. Conservative minded justices are just as guilty as liberal and moderate judges in taking away what used to be states rights in the name of the Interstate Commerce Clause. For years they have been slowly whittling away at states rights. I hate to say it, but as much as I liked most of his work, Rhenquist was bad about abusing the ICC to give an issue federal jurisdiction.

Beren
January 17, 2006, 12:43 PM
The Key word Here is DOLE

I don't think "dole" was used here in the sense of a government welfare program.

BigG
January 17, 2006, 01:32 PM
The Key word Here is DOLE

If the government is paying for it Medicare/Medicaid then they can regulate its distribution.

I believe Master Blaster is right. Scalia is too smart and said it that way because that's what he meant. The doler can decide not to dole to the dolee. Makes perfect sense.

Beren
January 17, 2006, 01:38 PM
I believe Master Blaster is right. Scalia is too smart and said it that way because that's what he meant. The doler can decide not to dole to the dolee. Makes perfect sense.

That would be an interesting argument if Medicare or Medicaid had ever entered into the case at all. They did not.

There's nothing quite like building up a strawman and smacking him down.

(BTW, read the opinion written by Thomas. It is somewhat amusing to see him lambast the majority for taking a position that contradicts the position they took on Raich. Thomas dissented with the majority on Raich, and he rubs their noses in their turnaround, even though he may otherwise agree with the majority decision in the Oregon case. I think he dissented simply so he could smack the others around with a clue stick.

I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution.)

ArmedBear
January 17, 2006, 02:29 PM
I'm pretty radical. I'd just as soon see the FDA disbanded completely, and have the money it costs returned to the taxpayers.

If the Underwriters' Laboratories can perform an identical function using private money, with just about any product except for medicine, I think there is plenty of evidence that private drug testing would work at LEAST as well as the FDA. The beauty of it would be that I could freely choose what I want to put in my body, based on costs and benefits, and that tax money would be saved.

But you know, I don't really expect a Federal judge to tear down the FDA. I'd like to see it, but I'm not shocked and terrified ("created a monster?") by a judge who goes with all the precedent that allows the Federal regulation of prescription drugs.

LJWebster1
January 17, 2006, 06:03 PM
No we haven't created a monster. I trust Scalia more than any other public official, elected or otherwise.

Standing Wolf
January 17, 2006, 07:36 PM
Rest assured that any judge hoping for a gig on the supreme court will be a statist of some form. Constitutionalists, originists, whatever is irrelevant.

Yep. The only thing government consistently does well is look after its own interests.

THEREALIRONHORSE
January 17, 2006, 07:48 PM
I'm pretty radical. I'd just as soon see the FDA disbanded completely, and have the money it costs returned to the taxpayers.

If the Underwriters' Laboratories can perform an identical function using private money, with just about any product except for medicine, I think there is plenty of evidence that private drug testing would work at LEAST as well as the FDA. The beauty of it would be that I could freely choose what I want to put in my body, based on costs and benefits, and that tax money would be saved.

But you know, I don't really expect a Federal judge to tear down the FDA. I'd like to see it, but I'm not shocked and terrified ("created a monster?") by a judge who goes with all the precedent that allows the Federal regulation of prescription drugs.


I sorta see where this aplies to the whole,but not really.I do however agree 1oo% with its content

oh yea,as a New York mountain dweller....Scalias alright,more nut then squash...

MechAg94
January 17, 2006, 08:46 PM
Some things the FDA does are needed. The current Good Manufacturing Practices regulating food production and handling may be a pain in the ass and very ineficient, but that is one industry that earned every bit of regulation it got.

gc70
January 17, 2006, 10:14 PM
For those who have NOT read the actual opinion (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/060117_Gonzales_v_Oregon.pdf), Scalia never uses the word "dole" or its derivatives in his dissent.

So, if you are offended by the idea that "federal officials have the power to regulate the doling out of medicine" then you need to be upset at the AP reporter who used emotionally charged language to twist Scalia's dissent.

BTW, I love Scalia's wit and I was not disappointed in this dissent:Since the Regulation does not run afowl (so to speak) of the Court’s newly invented prohibition of “parroting” (a statute)

beerslurpy
January 17, 2006, 10:46 PM
I've got stronger mixed opinions on Scalia than any other human being. He's smart, funny, and when he's right, he's dead-nuts right. But he has a totalitarian bent that scares the bejeezus out of me sometimes, and he places way too much authority in the executive branch.
Yeah, he ruled the wrong way in Raich as well. I have slowly been losing faith in him as a conservative and as a federalist. However!...

Scalia's dissent is more in line with current interstate commerce jurisprudence than the majority opinion. He clearly makes the point that neither assisted suicide nor the regulation or controlled substances are in the enumerated powers of congress. He says they either have to rule consistently or they have to revisit the current jurisprudence regarding the powers granted to congress (mostly under the Commerce Clause and Wickard v Filburn).

I personally think Scalia made the right call in this case. Ruling correctly in the minor easy cases is an easy way to let pressure out of the system without correcting the greater injustice inflicted by wickard and its many children.

taliv
January 17, 2006, 11:02 PM
sadly, after reading his dissent, i have to agree with scalia again.

i don't think the feds should have anything to do with drug regulations, but that's not what the case was deciding. it's another case of the majority imposing their opinion (that i happen to agree with) at the expense of consistency with the law.

ArmedBear
January 18, 2006, 01:30 AM
I sorta see where this aplies to the whole,but not really.I do however agree 1oo% with its content

oh yea,as a New York mountain dweller....Scalias alright,more nut then squash...

My point was just that, while I myself don't think the Federal Government has any business telling me what drugs I should take (Vioxx, Cannabis, whatever), I don't feel we've "created a monster" because we have a judge who makes a decision going with 100 years of precedent rather than all of my libertarian opinions. "Monster" is a pretty strong word.

If you enjoyed reading about "Have we created a monster?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!