As SCOTUSBlog noted yesterday, Gonzales v. Oregon was the first time
Chief Justice John Roberts has dissented to a Court decision. The Chief
joined the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia, and did not write separately.
The case upheld an Oregon law that permits doctors to prescribe medica-
tions in certain assisted suicide situations. [See NYT, “Fraught Issue, but
Narrow Ruling in Oregon Suicide Case,” Jan. 18, 2006]
We can’t know what was on Justice Roberts’ mind, other than the issues
discussed by Justice Scalia. Nonetheless, it’s impossible not to wonder
whether the following 2004 statement by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,
who is now Pope Benedict XVI, played an important role:
The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin.
The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial
decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia,
states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by
conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law,
such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never
licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of
such a law or vote for it’”. Christians have a “grave obligation
of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if
permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from
the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […]
This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for
the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits
it or requires it.”We have opined at this website that John Roberts appears to be a “serious
Catholic” who would feel a moral obligation to act on the above statement,
which is directed at Catholics in public life. [see our prior post here]
The Chief Justice joined the dissent of Justice Scalia (with concludes that the
term “legitimate medical purpose . . . surely excludes the prescription of drugs
to produce death”), rather than Justice Thomas’ dissent (with its focus on the
inconsistency with the Raich v. Gonzales precedent, which struck down
California’s medical marijuana laws). That at least suggests that John Roberts
had moral issues on his mind more than statutory construction and stare
decisis. (Those same priorities might also be on Steve Bainbridge’s mind,
as well as the gang at Mirror of Justice.)
update (Jan. 19, 2006): Robert Tsai offers his take on the Roberts’
DIssentat Concurring Opinions (Jan. 18, 2006), including that
“He, like Scalia, is willing to read Congress’ enumerated
powers broadly (and the core of state’s rights narrowly in
advance of national interests)–even when the strongest
interest appears to be in cultivating moral standards. This
is bad news forproponents of interstitial federalism.” [“Hail
to the (New) Chief: Death With Dignity — Part III”]
Reid Report suggests we “Recall that during his hearings, Roberts
demurred on the ‘right to die’ issue.” Also, TalkLeft gathers editorial
responses from the press (“Pro-Life Groups to Urge ‘John Ashcroft,
MD Law’,” Jan. 18, 2006). And, Prof. Bainbridge frets that “Scalia
Scuttles Federalism” — and it “no longer seems possible, however,
to believe that he is developing a coherent conservative jurisprudence.”
That suggests that (a) Steve may not be particularly in sync with
Scalia’s “public morality” position, and (b) Steve has the untenable
notion that there can be a monolithic “conservative jurisprudence”
and that it will hold all the anwers to every judicial decision.
processional
cold wind lifts one corner
of the pall
cathedral garden
cardinals in the birdbath
scatter drops of light
into the night
we talk of human cloning
snowflakes
witnessing his will
the frost-hatched
pane
Peggy Lyles from To Hear the Rain (Brooks Books, 2002)
Full moon by her bedmy daughter asks
the meaning of death
The stone church quiet
after the funeral bell —
deepening snowfall
autumn evening–
yellow leaves cover
the plot reserved for m
Rebecca Lilly – Shadwell Hills (Birch Brook Press, 2002)“Autumn evening” — A New Resonance 2; Modern Haiku XXX:2
January 18, 2006
Roberts: a “Serious Catholic” dissent against euthanasia?
does Overlawyered know about Vonnegut?
Walter Olson has been all over the Tobacco Lawsuit Industry at his
Overlawyered.com website for years. So, I was surprised today —
while listening to Kurt Vonnegut‘s latest book, A Man Without a Country
(Seven Stories Press, Sept. 2005) — to hear a new legal theory for suing
big tobacco that has not been exposed yet at Overlawyered. Vonnegut
“I’m going to tell you some news. … Here?s the news: I am
going to sue the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company,
manufacturers of cigarettes, for a billion bucks! Starting when
I was only twelve years old, I have never chain-smoked anything
but unfiltered Pall Malls. And for many years now, right on the
package, Brown and Williamson have promised to kill me. But
I am now eighty-two. Thanks a lot, you dirty rats. The last thing
I ever wanted was to be alive when the three most powerful people
on the whole planet would be named Bush, Dick and Colon.”
[update: An anonymously curious reader wonders whether Kurt
borrowed the “three most powerful men” line from Chris Rock,
or vice versa.]
Of course, after today’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Oregon,
B&W might force Vonnegut to mitigate damages, by moving to Oregon
and finding a willing doctor. [And see Vonnegut’s novel from 2001,
God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian.] Still, I count on Walter to keep me up
to date on issues like this, so I’m a little disappointed.
Speaking of disappointment and broken promises, this
thin little volume (declared by its publisher to be “The first
major book to appear from Kurt Vonnegut in nearly a decade.”)
did not have enough new or unique wit or wisdom to be worth
my 2.5 hours of listening time, and does not deserve to be called
a “major book,” by an author who has indeed written many such
books. The best one-liners could have filled a couple pages. My
main theory of liability, however, would not be against the publisher
for over-touting, but would be against Kurt Vonnegut for breaking his
“promise to write no more.” Hey, you never know.
afterthought (10 AM): Maybe I’m being a little too tough on old Kurt.
Part of my problem with the book is that he says so many things
that are simply common sense to me — opinions I’ve held for a long
time. Two good examples:
(1) “There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t
know what can be done to fix it. This is Only nut cases want
to be president. This was true even in high school. Only clearly
(2) ” . . . vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes.
But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten
Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course
that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand
that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted
anywhere. “Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed
are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break.” (at 98)
and here]
Vonnegut’s mention of Schenectady, my adopted hometown:
“I got classified as a science fiction writer simply because I
wrote about Schenectady, New York. My first book, Player Piano
[1952], was about Schenectady. There are huge factories in
Schenectady and nothing else. I and my associates were engineers,
physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. And when I wrote about
the General Electric Company and Schenectady, it seemed a
fantasy of the future to critics who had never seen the place.”
[emphasis added]
Of course, GE is no longer headquartered in Schenectady, and has about
5% of its peak number of employees stationed here. I wonder what Kurt
would think about that. Talk about nothing here. Talk about futuristic.
Now that Walter has a heads-up on the “still living after all these years” cause of
action, I’m counting on him to keep us posted.
news of his death
the cigarette smoke rises
straight up
“noSmokingR”
goblins at the door
in the darkness behind them
a cigarette flares
the slow wobble
of a smoke ring
Comments Off on does Overlawyered know about Vonnegut?