SCOTUS hears US vs. Oregon on assisted suicide
 

The Supreme Court is today hearing arguments in the case by the US DoJ to intervene in Oregon's Death With Dignity Act by preventing the use of drugs in the process of assisted suicide. DoJ cites Federal drug laws as the basis for its authority to prevent Oregon from allowing drugs to be used to kill someone. Oregon contends that the law is legitimate (has passed Supreme Court muster) and that jurisdiction over assisted suicide lies with the states. This is why the DoJ is not attempting to block the law (they failed at this before), but instead merely focussing on the use of drugs (Federally regulated) in the case.

How do you feel the Court should rule?

Disclaimer: I am an Oregon native and this may color my opinion on this case to some degree, I admit.

I am personally wholeheartedly against the Department of Justice attempt to undermine the Death With Dignity Act. It is important to remember several important factors going into this:

1 - Oregonian citizens have passed the Act twice at the polls by significant margin.
2 - DWDA has passed court muster at the State, Federal, and Supreme Court levels.
3 - The right to legislate this matter lies Constitutionally with the states.
4 - The current case does not question Oregon's right to allow assisted suicide.

There is no questioning that this current attack is an attempt at an end run around a law that has already withstood numerous attacks and been upheld at every turn. There is also no questioning that this is a political move to satisfy supporters of the Administration, most of whom do not live in Oregon. However, while these factors may show the motive of those bringing the case, they do not invalidate the case...that instead must be done when we look at its legal merits.

This is where it falls down but also where the implications are much wider than this case. DoJ contends that Federal law allows the Federal Gov't to regulate the use of drugs and determine what does or does not constitute appropriate use. This has histroically been the status quo, authorizing the Federal involvement in the war on drugs and against the illegal trade of pharmaceuticals, as well as ensuring drug safety through consistant legislation of laws regarding FDA standards for drug testing and production. Not a bad thing, generally speaking. But then again, these are overwhelmingly matters of interstate commerce and therefore legitimate areas for Federal involvement.

The letter of Federal law may indeed authorize the Government to intervene in Oregon's case. If this is the matter, and I suspect the argument that it is is strong, then it may indeed mean current Federal drug laws are unconstitutional unless they include provisions to prevent these laws from being used to contravene those areas of authority expressly reserved for the states by the Constitution. Such a finding would open a can of worms indeed.

There is a complicating factor however, and that is that is the more widely spread medical marijuana cases, in which, IIRC, the Supreme Court has backed what I think is an unconstitutional level of federal involvement in the states' rights to determine the use of the substance. However, this is different than Oregon's case in that marijuana involves attempts to give a legal use to an otherwise illegal substance, in which all commerce was banned, while Oregon's case involves the use of legal pharmaceuticals.

I find it particularly distressing that such virulent attack on Oregon's law is coming from an Administration that claims to be Conservative, or have Conservatives abandoned States Rights as a platform since obtaining control of the Federal Government?

Fun, but not entirely relevant, facts:

- About 1 in 5 Oregonians is non-religious, the highest rate of all 50 states.
- This will be one of Roberts' first major cases, so we'll probably hear a lot about his questions, vote, and opinion on this one.

Josh

Drug laws should be left up to the states. Congress can take its "interstate commerce" bullshit and shove...

I think I've said enough. I side with the state of Oregon. The Constitution clearly reserves this sort of power to the state governments. [/federalist rant]

Is it unbelievable or what that Bush appoints this guy to be chief justice, and conveniently the first case before his court is one of the Bush administration's Christian crusade pet projects to take away states' rights while Republicans CONTINUE to claim they SUPPORT states' rights and a "strict interpretation of the Constitution." Sure, if by that they mean "strictly interpreting the Constitution however Bush and the neo-cons want to interpret it in Jesus's name Amen."

Of course, we all know how the Supreme Court is going to rule, of course it's going to rule in favor of Gonzales (on whose appointment I will refrain from commenting) because the Court has ALWAYS been willing to let the Federal government do whatever the hell it wants as long as it's part of the Controlled Substances Act, which is an affront to the Constitution if you ask me. Oh, and those damn blue bloods in the 9th Circuit, they need to be taught another lesson in letting the Federal government do whatever the hell it wants. When are they going to learn? They're smart guys, they need to get with the program, this is 'Merica not some commie left coast independent republic. The formation of which sounds like a better and better idea as time passes.

This is a states issue, and I think the court will uphold Oregon.

SC cases are calendared far in advance. It is merely a coincidence that this has come up after Robert's appt. The court agreed to hear it last session.

I admit it's a coincidence; it's just one unbelievably "convenient" coincidence.

I'm going to overlook your rediculous religious bigotry and get straight to the heart of the matter:

1. OF COURSE the federal government is doing everything it can to enforce the laws it enacted and is CHARGED WITH ENFORCING.

2. I think the controlled substances act and just about every extension of both the commerce clause and the compelling government interest principle is way out of whack of with the spirit, the letter, the intent and all common sense as far as constitutionality goes.

3. It is extremely amusing to hear a liberal whine about state's rights. Ironic, amusing, and frankly, concerning. Concerning because I suspect the irony is lost, and the hypocracy is justifiable.

Finally, imho, Oregon's assisted suicide law should stand. The federal government's controlled substance's act should be entirely rejected as unconstitutional.

-bear

I think it's a tough call.

-Jursidiction might be legit for the feds on this one, seeing as to they are the ones who regulate all of that.

-The point that the issue should be left to stand with the people who voted on it is interesting. Convienant that people feel the state or the people voting on state issues should be charged with it one way, but say when the issue is homosexual marriage the issue goes out the window.

-I find it interesting that doctors are prescribing(sp) lethal doses of medicine to people. What is it called the hypocritic oath?

I don't care if people want to die with dignity, I don't care that they may want to take their own lives, I'm cool with that. I am not in favor of the government sanctioning it in any way shape or form, really I think they have no place in the matter.

1. Not when those laws violate the ultimate law, the Constitution.
2. Then we agree.
3. I don't even know what you're trying to say here. I suspect you're being purposefully ambiguous because you don't really have much to say and just want to take a personal shot. I'm also not sure where you got the idea I'm a liberal because I'm much more libertarian.

Has it really been rammed down everyone's throats so hard that Conservatives are the only guardians of states rights that it is inconceivable to you that Liberals might actually be quite concerned legitimately with Federal intervention and the squashing of states rights?

Or is it just amusing and ironic to you (as well as concerning of course) that Liberals don't actually fit the stereotypical mold that so many have created for them?

As a liberal, I am often perplexed at the myriad of sterotypes made for me. According to many I want to squash states rights, banish God, hate the military, steal money from people, legalize beastiality and polygamy, destroy marriage, let drugs rule the streets, destroy commerce, and invite Osama to anger management classes. Yet, they are 'concerned' when reality counters this strawman perception...interesting.

Well, Oregon's law will stand, regardless of the ruling. The court has already said it is fine. All this will do is if they side with the Feds, is mean that while Oregon can have assisted suicide, they just can't do it with drugs. Perhaps the governor will have to order a batch of very fine Japanese swords to replace the pharmaceuticals in the job. Apparantly that would be okay, just heaven forbid we use drugs for a lethal injection! ...oh-oh!

Josh

It's just more amusing to me that liberal idealogy right or wrong, has rarely been passed by the will of the people, it almost always comes at the hands of the court.

I'll keep this in mind. You're religion commentary led me to believe the liberal bend. Those are democrat spinning tactics...not liberty loving, federalism embracing, libertarian common sense.

If I misjudged you, I apologize.

-bear

Not Constitutionally, as drugs weren't an issue in that document. Granted, the Feds regulate them, and I think we can mostly agree that such regulation is appropriate where interstate commerce is concerned, but is it okay to simply allow the Federal Government to simply assign itself the responsibility of regulating something and then accept that as grounds for unconstitutional activity?

[/QUOTE]
-The point that the issue should be left to stand with the people who voted on it is interesting. Convienant that people feel the state or the people voting on state issues should be charged with it one way, but say when the issue is homosexual marriage the issue goes out the window.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what the relation to gay marriage is (as that has passed some votes, failed others, so I'm not sure what we're saying with it). But the fact that people voted for something does not make it okay, if it is not Constitutional. However, it does add weight to the case, and since the role of government is to serve the people, when they express a view, it should be taken into account by the court.

Well that oath is hardly legally binding, and there is plenty of room to understand that the doctor's duty to cause no harm may well mean that allowing a person to die with dignity, versus suffer intensely without hope of reprieve. Oregon recognizes that this is a personal decision in which the state should respect the individual's right to choose their own path, and that if the person makes such a choice, medical assistance should not be denied them.

Are you saying you are okay with people ending their lives, but that it should be illegal still? Seems a bit convoluted, please explain...

Josh

HUH!?! Forgive the tangent, as this is getting far off-topic, but your statement couldn't be more wrong...but not only in this case, where such liberal ideology has been strongly supported by the people, but in most anything else...was Social Security enacted by the courts? Was the Civil Rights Act made by the courts? Were Public Schools built by the courts? Did the courts put gay marriage amendments on the ballots?

Of course liberal ideals have been defended in the courts, and rights protected by the courts when it was brought to the courts' attention that those rights were being violated, but this is all sourced in law, most primarily in the Constitution itself.

Namely rights to privacy, abortion, gay marriage and the ilk come to mind, I'm not reffering to government programs. Also civil rights acts were only made by congress many years after Judicial decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education.

Brown v. BoE was based on Constitutional law. The Constitution was not written by the courts, but yes, the courts did play an important role in protecting rights guaranteed by the Constitution in that case, where they were being violated by the government. The 14th Amendment was not passed by the courts, it was passed by Congress.

Gay marriage wasn't put on the ballots by the Courts, and gay marriage and civil union laws were passed by Legislatures, not courts, so I'm not sure why you are citing it.

Privacy and abortion are cases where the courts did protect the rights of the citizens in the face of government attempts to usurp them in a manner lacking Constitutional authority. Obviously, Conservatives debate the judgement of Constitutionality in these cases, and that's a legitimate debate. However, to say that the courts came up with this stuff out of thin air with no law backing their rulings is ludicrous. I'm sorry if Conservatives don't agree with every judgement of the courts, and want to claim that such judgements are the basis of liberal judicial activism and an attempt by the courts to 'make law', but its simply not the case.

Well to quickly end the thread jack with one last point, the right to privacy which has led to much ruling on abortion and homosexual decisions is no where mentioned in the constitution.

ANd I don't think these people committing suicide should be illegal. I don't want the government lending any support to it legally or otherwise, in anyway facilitating it, they should stay out.

Your last point is taken on the thread-jack...now on this matter...

I guess what I'm asking is how do you propose to have this encoded. Right now its illegal in 49 states, so that constitutes government intervention in the matter. Oregon has legalized it, but with strict regulation to prevent abuse. If you don't have any rules, than it means that anything goes. If you deny medical assistance for those wishing death with dignity, you are still punishing them, but if you allow it, you have to have rules. I mean how exactly to you envision this regime of legal suicide without any government involvement? Do you try and prevent abuse? What is okay or not and how is it enforced? Unless maybe you are advocating anarchy, there has to be some kind of law involved in these situations.

Josh, I favor Oregon's law, but I am not as convinced as you are that the Fed's will lose the battle. I liked your ceremonial death by sword bit of humor, but isn't it true that assisted suicide involves a prescription of a lethal amount of a drug? Should the Fed's win, I believe there would be a serious "chilling" effect on doctors if they are risking prosecution. Has Oregon found a way around this?

This could, hopefully, lead to a change in the way drugs are regulated in this country. Maybe unlikely as a direct result of this case, but it will raise issues that may not go away for a while (and are already on some people's minds).

Thanks for pointing this out! I should clarify that despite my fervent belief in what the right way for the Court to decide is, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm totally bullish on the prospect that they will decide that way. And yes, while the law will remain technically in effect and legal, if the Feds succeed it will indeed neuter the law in effect for all intents and purposes. Of course, since the law is still on the books and as legal as ever, when the Administration changes its position (or just when the Administration changes), and the Feds stop intervening, practise under the law can continue.

Undoubtedly, Oregon will not stop trying to challenge the Federal involvement so long as it deems that involvement to violate its rights, but I don't know what their strategy is, should they lose this case.

Josh

Obie, excellent point, I tried to allude to that, and I think some others have made comments that lead me to believe that if the Court rules for Oregon, depending on how they cite it and how the opinion is written, it could have ramifications for drug policy in many other areas. That the Fed is assuming since it has excercised this power against other drugs and in so many ways before that it is almost taking this power for granted. Should they be denied it, all kinds of drug war tactics and pharmeceutical regulation issues will have to be revisisted, and we may not like all the results. However, I suspect that even if they rule in favor of Oregon, the opinion will be written to avoid this to some degree.

Same as with the medicinal marijuana.... If a state's population voted FOR the issue the Feds have NO RIGHT whatsoever to overturn that election unless it breaks a CONSTITUTIONAL law and not some fucking Federal mandate.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "Federal mandate". If you mean an excessively controlling, but technically constitutional law, then you are incorrect. There is no problem with federal law being used to override the wishes of the population of a state, provided that the power in question is granted to the Congress by the Constitution.

If, on the other hand, you mean to say that "Federal mandate[s]" are unconstitutional federal laws, then you are, of course correct.

I imagine what we are dealing with here is an interstate commerce issue, which seems like BS to me, but what do I know about Con Law? :D

I don't see how it can possibly be interstae commerce. They barely got the medicinal marijuana on that.

How will they call this interstate? What because the drugs manufactured cross state lines? That truly is stretching it.

What amazes me most is BushCo and these Neocons who call for less government interference, more states rights and true interpretation ("original intent") of the Constitution are the ones so gung ho to overturn VOTERS WILL.

Just boggles my brain how people can support the power hungry man who believes the voters voices just don't matter.

While on the issue of original intent, show me were the right to assisted suicide is constitutionally protected? .... Protected, hell mentioned, insinuated, guarenteed, afforded. I know you are secured in life and liberty, don't reckon death is up there.

It is not my duty to show you anything it is the Federal gov't DUTY TO THE PEOPLE to show us where the Constitution and original intent give them the right to outlaw it.

The PEOPLE should not have to prove the Constitution gives us a right..... it is the Federal Gov't that needs to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that right is theirs to take away.

And I don't see it in this case.

I cannot understand these strict "Conservatives" who believe the people have to prove ANYTHING, if that is the case you are giving the Federal government far far too much and taking away far far too much from the people.

Original intent was to have the Federal government have as little control as possible. And the Conservatives love to say this but when it is a case they want the Fed to be involved in they change tunes and demand the people show where we have beeen given the right and that is bassackwards.

So show me, where does it say the Federal government has the right to take away from me the right to die with dignity. The state's populace voted and said I have that right.

The major issue I see is this... since they've been unable to defeat the DWDA time after time, they're now going after it's heart, the thing that makes it beat. Part of the reason Oregon has won time after time is it has proven the pure effectiveness and safety of the use of the drugs to achieve the desired expiration. If the DoJ gets its way, they will no longer be able to assist suicides using drugs, and will pretty much be impotent... and I have no doubt that, if that were to happen, the DoJ would once again go after the DWDA's throat, and then they would have the upper hand, because then the state would have to prove they can do it so it's safe and effective, but without using drugs.

If they can't use drugs, how could it be done? 12-guage shotgun blast to the face? C-4 enema? Napalm bath? Defenestration? (one of my favorite words, btw)

I am really concerned with this line of conservative reasoning. It seems to be very popular.

I'm going to point you to the ninth ammendment, which says the following:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ad the tenth ammendment, which says the following:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means that just because it isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The constitution does three things:

1. Ennumerates specific rights retained by the people.
2. Limits the reach of the federal government.
3. What it is silent on is left TO THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE.

So I'm going to answer your question with a challenge:

Show us where in the constitution it gives the federal government the right to regulate assisted suicide, or even prohibits the states from doing so. Should you fail this challenge, and you will, that right is retained by the people or the states EXCLUSIVELY.

While I agree with you here Pan, I must direct you to some very disturbing precedent that has completely corrupted the doctrine of interstate commerce.

1. Sen Diane Fienstien is extremely concerned that somehow interstate commerce would not be valid in the enactment of federal regulations prohibitting firearms within a certain distance from schools. Nothing interstate or commercial about it. See some of her qgrandstaning in Robert's confirmation hearing.

2. The federal government has used interstate commerce reasoning to prevent development entirely within a single state, under the guise of protecting a single species (endangered species act) which exists ONLY within a single states borders.

3. The federal government used interstate commerce to rebuff California's medical marijuana laws. This was NON-COMMERCIAL in nature, and obviously conducted exclusively within a single states borders.

This is compelling evidence, that the plain and common sense meaning of these two words, Interstate and Commerce, really means nothing of the sort...since it also includes NONCOMMERCIAL activity, conducted entirely intrastate.

/nice rebuff of mojo btw...

Go figure.

-bear

As an Oregonian, I really see this as a states' rights issue. We Oregonians have said at the polls not ONCE, but TWICE (and by a large margin each time) that Death with Dignity is legal in our state.

I hope the court sees our side on this, because this really is an issue (regardless of drug regulations) that should be left up to the people and to the state to decide.

Trust me...we Oregonians have already debated this to the death. We know what we want...and we want the right to decide when we die.

Nice, argument and more concise than mine above.

I truly don't see how anyone can argue it is the burden of the people to show where their rights are protected and not the Fed's burden to prove that right is theirs to take away.




In all the above mentioned examples, you used Bear, dangerous precedents are being set, I have to agree.

I truly believe the Fed would rather treat us all like idiots and dictate what we can or cannot do. But they do so not to control but to keep order.

Whereas, I am a firm believer in the people's voice and that the people know their communities and will keep order much better by having their voices heard.

If in Oregon this law gets abused (which I don't see happening), I am sure the people are smart enough to go and eventually vote against it.

Overall Bear, I think we have the same opinion and mindset over all this......

So true :D

I can only hope that if the SCOTUS rules against the wishes of the people of Oregon it sets the wheels in motion for some real change. Somehow, I can see the next major political struggle in America starting there. Not saying there aren't other places I could see it starting too, but I think the culture of Oregon might just be independent-minded enough that the people would have the guts to do it.

Well I've heard it refered to as the Socialist Republic of Oregon on more than one occaission...lol. I think a friend of mine was not far off when she referred to Oregonians as a bunch of 'rugged individualist conservative liberals'.

Today's paper stated that based upon the direction Rogers' questions were going, he is signaling that he will side with the Feds. If that is true, the outcome will be decided by either O'Connor or Miers.

It is speculated that even though O'Connor heard the arguments, there may be a move to rehear the case for Miers to give her opinion.

It's rather easy. All the Feds need do is use the interstate commerce law, or who knows some drug regulation law. They only need establish how Oregon's state law is somehow in violation of federal law, because state law is trumped by Fed. Law like California Medicinal Pot.

Mojo, that is exactly what they will do because the Feds control narcotics under the interstate commerce clause.

So, in essense nothing is beyond federal reach?

Rediculous.

You have failed the challenge. You are nothing more then a liberal with a different label. Ends justified by ANY MEANS.

-bear

You (mojo and Elph) are both probably right.

I am of the opinion, that this limitless reach of interstate commerce MUST BE REIGNED IN. It is out of control, unrecognizable, completely illogical, and beyond the common man's comprehension.

Oh well. I have plenty of theories as to why it won't happen. Both the liberals and the conservatives, two groups who differ in name only, need this all encompassing limitless definition of interstate commerce to do anything which gets them re-elected.

I am beginning to appreciate n0nsensicals signature more and more all the time.

Where do we sign up for a musket and a three corner hat, so we can get this revolution started?:thumbsup:

-bear

I agree, Bear, that the IC clause was wrong the first time it was used (a farmer's personal wheat crop), and every single time it has been used since to overrule an intrastate activity. It's so damned imbedded in the legal code now that it just may take some muskets to route it out.

I don't see this as a left or right issue, it is a right or wrong issue. Right being true to the Constitution and wrong being finding some way for Feds to revoke the people's voices.

I'll argue where tax money should be spent or Bush or other issues that need and should be, but when it comes to rights..... like I said Left/Right both should be able to agree on issues where our rights are at stake, such as this.

There's a fantastic article on MSNBC about this.

I agree, but it's not Bush that will decide this. The one thing we know for certain about Rogers is his statement that he will respect decided law. He will be proving that if he goes the way of the interstate commerce clause in upholding the Fed's "right" to oversee the use of narcotic drugs.

We can all call BS, if Rogers overturns Roe v. Wade.

What if the drugs used are produced in Oregon?

Bold and Italics mine.

Are you doing this on purpose? If so, I don't get the joke. His name is Justice Roberts. Anyway not meaning to pick nits...just saying is all:thumbsup:.

-bear

You mean like, California where not only were they exclusively intrastate, but they were also noncommercial? (Gonzales v Raich).

It doesn't seem to matter in the least.

We'll see.

Here, for the record, are the oft referred to 16 words of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, commonly called the interstate commerce clause, which gives congress the authority:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

-b-

People forget that we have an entire eastern section of the state that's pretty conservative. We have five representatives to Congress in Oregon--4 are Dems and 1 is a Republican (as you can guess, he represents that eastern half). But the fact is that this state passed the law by a WIDE majority BOTH times (I believe we passed it by 85% in 1997) and more than 15% of Oregonians live in the eastern part of the state. Sometimes the conservatives in this state surprise you by passing liberal legislation--but the entire state is by no means liberal.

However, you better believe it that most Oregonians are watching this court case closely, and we're prepared to raise a stink if SCOTUS rules against Death With Dignity.

Doesn't matter. The controlled substances laws might allow them to control any substance on the federal level, meaning they can say "you cannot prescribe lethal amounts of anything, no matter how much someone wants you to" and that's that... no interstate commerce to fuss with, and you don't have to defeat a law people put into effect...

It's like if the government wanted to outlaw guns, but the people kept voting to allow guns anyway, and the government came back and said "fine, have your guns.. but since i'm in charge of ammo manufacture and shipping, i say ammo is illegal in america. have fun with your empty guns."

Complete brain fart. :eek: Thanks for the catch.

Did you know that many of the rulings based on the IC clause, the ones that the Right-wing classically and vehemently opposes, were repealments of Jim Crow legislation passed by various states? Or that if the government had no right to impose agricultural regulations such as you oppose above it would bankrupt every family farmer in the country and distrupt the availability of food?

The question at hand is whether the federal goverment has the ability to regulate the specific dosage of a drug which it has already approved for use: morphine. I, as it seems almost everyone here, do not think it does. Clearly though, it's not an issue that was forseen in 1787. So ultimately it's left to interpretation of those appointed to the court who are in turn a reflection of the people elected over the past 25 years. It's kind of scary in that light to consider the superficial issues which cause most people to vote one way or another: boys kissing boys, regional accents, hairstyles, particulars of weapon availability, and flashy media displays.

Well, SCOTUS has made its ruling in favor of Oregon with a 6-3 majority.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/po...rtner=homepage

Congrats Ore. now I can't wait to hear how the Justices legislated from the bench or see what Bush has to say.

Maybe there is hope, maybe we have a judge or 2 on the Bench that sees how Bush is stacking the court and may have decided to move a little Left in his/her decisions.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh my fucking God it shows the Neo Con's agenda right there..... "FUCK THE STATES THE FEDS MAKE THE LAWS."

That is the very essence of what this guy said.

Still lost as to how the Libertarians and true Conservatives who want less federal government can support these people. :crazy: Seems hypocritical to me.

I've disagreed with Scalias opinions many times and i'll add this one to the pile. I'm starting to put Scalia in the same bucket as 'flip-flop' john kerry. How he can say he's an 'originalist' and still come out with some of the garbage opinions like this one is totally perplexing.

Personally, I don't know any libertarians who support the Republican neo-cons, and I know many conservatives who don't either.

Anyway, I'm glad to see this ruling.

how did roberts vote on this?

Ah but those people voted for Bush...... and keep voting in GOP congressmen to rubber stamp anything Bush wants.

What people say they want and how they vote are obviously at odds with each other.

It's BS for these Conservatives and Libertarians to say they don't support the neo cons and want less government, then vote for Bush and his rubber stampers.

If you are true to your beliefs you'll vote for who you truly believe in, you'll work for them and get out their messages.

People did for Perot, even though they knew he had no chance to win, they made a statement and it did shake things up a little. Sadly the GOP squashed it with their pseudo "Contract for America" which possessed term limits and balanced budgets...... Neither of which they honored or even talk about anymore.

He, along with Scalia and Thomas, dissented

roberts dissented with thomas and scalia.

i wonder how the vote would have turned out with alito on board. it's hard to gauge the guy, but from the hearings he seemed a bit more conservative than roberts. i don't know if that means libertarian conservative or you-can't-do-that conservative, although his record seems to indicate a tendency toward the latter. every case is unique, of course.

Did you get a look at what the libertarian party had for a 04 candidate? Badnarik was a total moron to push some of the idiotology that he spewed. What other choice did we have?

Well, maybe dksuddeth voted for Bush, but none of the libertarians (or independents for that matter) that I know voted for him. I'll concede that I live in a state where we can freely vote our conscience without worrying about "spoiling" the election, but I know there were many libertarians out of my state who did not vote for Bush either. When Badnarik was asked who was better, Bush or Kerry, he refused to pick one pointing out that both are equally bad, only differently so. Honestly, dksuddeth, I'm not sure why you felt the need to vote for Bush either. You live in a state that was going to go to him no matter what - voting for Badnarik would have had no effect on the election and if more people in situations such as yours had done it, maybe the Libertarian party would have gotten more recognition and enough votes to be declared a major national party. (Same goes for Green supporters in solid states such as IL and TX.)

Anyway, my main point is that you shouldn't be assuming that libertarians voted for Bush. People who are willing to follow a third party are generally a lot less likely to also fall under the belief that they must vote for SOMEONE. Of the people I know who did not like Bush or Kerry, they either voted Badnarik (either because they agreed with him, or simply for the purpose of lending support to an "other") or they didn't vote at all. Yes, many libertarians DID vote for Bush (and many voted for Kerry too: most libertarians are quite aware that the Bush administration doesn't resemble their beliefs socially OR economically), but many also did not. So, let's not make broad assumptions otherwise.

I have often stated on here that in 2000 I voted proudly for Nader, mainly because I vote for the man I think will best represent my values and beliefs and not what party or against someone. (Although, admittedly 2004 was pretty damn close to having to vote for Kerry just so Bush wouldn't win.... Kerry just does not have that charisma nor did he have much of a platform).

Third parties can flourish and get their start at local and state levels. I am saddened that more people do not vote their conscience. Perhaps, if they did the parties would have to truly take notice and change.

To me there is no excuse to say "I voted for Bush/Kerry because I wanted to make sure the other guy lost, even though I truly supported this third party guy."

Where are your values? You are definately selling your vote and voice out. Things will never change as long as people do that..... and unfortunately peoplefeel they have no choice because the press and the people we rely upon to inform us of third parties refuse to do so.

I must say Secret, I have gained respect for you and your convictions because you are one of the few who didn't sell short, who voted your beliefs. We need more in the country like you.

You had the choice to write in a vote, to not vote for a president, to campaign all Summer for someone who did espouse your views.

You have the power man. USE IT. If you don't like the fact that the congressman in your district is too partisan, stand up be heard. Find that person that best represents you and push to be heard. Write letters to your editor, volunteer to help the man you choose campaign, print flyers, go door to door, organize fundraisers, shout as loud as you can and get others attention so that they can see there are choices.

Or do what so many others do and vote for "the lesser of 2 evils" and then complain how government doesn't listen or have accountability to the people.

The only true way a power hungry man will ever attain control over this nation is if we continue to be silent and choose to not be heard by just being sheep and voting for the same ol same ol.

well heres the big problem with that Pan, NOBODY supports my entire view system. With that in mind, I have to pick the lesser of all evils. In 04, that happened to be Bush. write in votes for president , while sounding all noble, are worthless. Unless they are on the ballot, you will not be making any noticable statement. Now, more localized votes, like a state or city election, you get enough people to do the same write in, you can have an effect. I don't see one write in saying anything in a voice of 250 million.

You will never find anyone that agrees with you in everything political, the key is to find the one that takes the issues closest to you and stands close to your beliefs. But at the same token don't be a one issue voter.

Our political parties and the way they have monopolized the mapping of districts, the requirements states have for people to get on ballots and the media has to change. They truly do not give anyone a chance to even try.

Perot was able to only because he had more money than he knew what to do with and bought 30 minute prime time slots on networks (after which a GOP ran Congress and a DEM President made that tactic illegal.... wonder why).

Nader had some coverage only because he has a cult following.

But Badnarik and the others who ran in '04 I never heard of in ANY form except here.

DK, I'm not trying to lecture, I believe the passion you have CAN make a difference if you want it to. Everyone on here can make a difference. The problem is when you are worried about paying bills, working long hard hours it is hard to speak out and organize.

People are so inundated with negativity about government, about the country that very few have any optimism or belief in the system left. They vote for people they know suck and are corrupt but they do not know what to do to change the system because they have been fed for so long that the 2 parties are all there ever will be and you can't fight the system.

People can fight back, it takes one voice and a few people to back that voice and more people will notice and become voices and in time the system can change.

But, as we saw in '94 we have to be careful that a party doesn't take the platform to win and then shit can the promises (Contract For America ring a bell anyone).

Our forefathers believed in us enough to give us the chance to have a voice. Those who say they didn't are the people who are scared that the system will change so they beat everyone up with the negativity.

It's bullshit but that's what keeps them in power and people from standing up.

Maybe it is truly time for college students and people unhappy with the system to stand up and be heard. It's the only way change will ever happen.