Not a Doctor, But He Plays one at the DOJ

|

A Ninth Circuit majority opinion today sharply (for judges) criticized John Ashcroft's overreach in his attempt to block enforcement of Oregon's assisted suicide law. Radley Balko was all over Ashcroft's selective federalism back in October.

Advertisement

NEXT: Attention LA Readers: Tenacious D-rug Benefit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Radley’s article is spot-on, as usual (yet again, it seems so out of place at FNC). As Asscroft continues to rape our civil rights, and continues to shove his fingers in various state pies, it would be a cruel joke to call him an advocate of states’ rights, or federalism. As The Balko said, the “federalism” bit is typically a cover for pro-slavery viewpoints, but when it comes to actual current issues of states’ rights, Asscroft couldn’t give less of a shit. This is just beyond reprehensible. This evil bastard should be beaten to within an inch of his life, then denied the pain medicine which would ease his suffering, and also denied the right to determine when his own life ends. Then he should be kept alive by machines for years, while he suffers for no good reason, other than to experience, firsthand, the horror that he forces upon others.

    That would be “justice”. Then, maybe we could start actually calling it the Department of Justice again.

  2. As The Balko said, the “federalism” bit is typically a cover for pro-slavery viewpoints

    “Is”? Either you’re posting this via time machine from the mid-19th century or you have your head up your ass. I know which one I think is the case, but I wouldn’t want to rush to judgement.

  3. Mr. Williams,

    Grow up….Your use of words indicates that you need to mature. Name calling and calls to violence do not convince others of the rightness of your point of view.

  4. As much as it’s derided, the 9th circuit has made some pretty good federalism rulings in the last year or so. Maybe there’s hope for us yet.

  5. According to the news accounts I’ve read, this case focuses almost entirely on statutory interpretation (did Congress intend to give Ashcroft the power to X) and not on federalism (did Congress have the power to give Ashcroft, or any other federal officials, the power to X). So enjoy the ruling, but don’t enjoy it too much. Congress could reverse it anytime they like by a simple majority.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.