Ashcroft Exorcized

Today the Supreme Court struck down former Attorney General John Ashcroft's challenge to Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law. This is a very good decision as it reasserts individual's rights to end-of-life decisions. The referendum, initially passed in 1994 and then re-affirmed by voters in 1997 (according to Deathwithdignity.org). Ashcroft challenged the law by attempting to have it over-ruled under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. As anticipated by opponents of his nomination, Cheif Justice John Roberts sided with Scalia and in the dissenting arguments,

Scalia backed the government's position that assisting in suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose." Saying that the court's decision "is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the Federal Government's business," Scalia wrote that "it is easy to sympathize with that position." However, the government has long been able to use its powers "for the purpose of protecting public morality," he said.

Since when was interfering with individual's end-of-life choices (with the input of several doctors, as required by the law) constitute an issue of "public morality". Vague phrases like this leave Scalia a wide opening for him to become what Republicans call an "activist judge", since the determination of what the public morality is is highly subjective and can be invoked to ignore both laws and precedent.