July 12, 2004
Ashcroft Again Gunning For Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law
Attorney General Asks Court To Reconsider Earlier Ruling
Before we get into this: Rob Salzman got to it first, then Carla at Preemptive Karma weighed in, and even The Taipei Kid slammed it. Now that we've done the shout out to those bloggers who beat us to it while we were spending the day being pissed off at the 90+ degree weather instead, let's get into it.
When last we heard of this particular aspect of the righteous-wing's attack on Oregon, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had ruled that Attorney General John Ashcroft had exceeded his authority by trying to shut down Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law.
Today's news? Ashcroft has asked the court to reconsider that panel's ruling:
The administration wants the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside its ruling backing the nation's only law allowing doctors to assist in hastening the death of patients. The Justice Department says the case, originally decided by a 2-1 vote, should be reheard with an 11-judge panel. Thirteen of the circuit's 25 full-time judges must agree to a rehearing, and they are rarely granted.
According to another article on this development: "If the federal appeals court declines to revisit the case, the federal government would be able to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court within 45 days."
Then again, there's this OPB News story which says that Ashcroft is first asking the original three-judge panel to reconsider its opinion. Only failing that would they be requesting the 11-judge panel to hear the case.
According to an news release sent out this afternoon by the Death With Dignity National Center, Ashcroft's Justice Department made their request just hours before the deadline for making any appeal of the initial ruling.
We admit to feeling some sort of sorrow on behalf of Ashcroft. This state really must infuriate him. We pass this law once, beat back a repeal attempt by a wider margin than it originally passed to begin with, and then the courts keep siding with us. What's a zealot with the full authority of the Justice Department to do but continue to harass us?
Comments (4)
Rob Salzman on 12 Jul 2004
I may have been first, but you certainly write it better then I do!
Jack Bog on 13 Jul 2004
A request for a rehearing "en banc" is fairly routine. In the Ninth Circuit, it's particularly interesting, since an "en banc" rehearing doesn't involve the entire court (as it does in most other places). You get a larger group of judges, mostly picked at random, but not all of them, and thus you never know most of who's going to be on it. The Ninth Circuit has plenty of conservative types on it, and Ashcroft is no doubt relying in part on the luck of the draw. The putz.
Marty Wilde on 13 Jul 2004
Yet another reason to split the 9th Circuit. They've been talking about it for over 10 years, but the proposals are always too political to pass the Senate.
As a lawyer, I have to say my biggest objection is not Ashcroft's ideology as much as his incredible ignorance of that little thing standing between us and dictatorship - the rule of law. He could have won the present case rather easily in the 9th Circuit if he'd just followed the Administrative Procedures Act. However, he was so offended by the Death With Dignity Act that he couldn't wait to do it right. In the end, he just helped the Act's supporters by giving us an way to indefinitely prolong the determination of the issue.
myrln on 13 Jul 2004
Heaven forfend he should spend his time going after the criminal element. More and more, Dumbya and his gang seem to be spending their time pushing their rightist, religious-oriented agenda while ignoring any matters that might actually help people. I guess that's what ideologues do. Much like the Taliban.