The Supreme Court and the States

The Supreme Court's decision in
Gonzales v. Oregon to uphold Oregon's assisted suicide law was a victory for federalism and the power of the states to decide issues democratically. The case centered on administrative law and justices such as Thomas and Scale whom you might have expected to support the state voted in favor of the feds. The case is a bit different than Gonzales v. Raich which was a disappointment to me because it rejected California's medical marijuana law. Thomas called the two results "perplexing, to say the least". The difference is that in Raich, the Controlled Substances Act clearly outlawed the possession of marijuana and the issue was whether Congress's power under the commerce clause could ban the possession of a substance that was grown completely in one state and did not enter the stream of commerce. In this case, the issue is one of statutory interpretation. The drugs used in Oregon's assisted suicide are prescribed by a doctor. The Controlled Substances Act requires that such drugs be used "for a medical purpose". The Attorney General interpreted the phrase "for a medical purpose" in a way that did not include assisted suicide. Taking the two cases together, it is pretty clear that if Congress amended the statute to clearly state that such drugs cannot be used for assisted suicide, the result would be different. At least, the Court is giving more weight to the states than to the interpretation of a Department. Personally, I think states should decide issues such as the use of marijuana and assisted suicide, whatever I think substantively about those issues. I hope congress does not amend the law but lets Oregon do whatever it wants.