see the future

The Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 upholding Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, a right-to-die law which took effect in 1997 and includes provisions for physician-assisted suicide.

The Bush administration position would "effect a radical shift of authority from the states to the federal government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court.

However, when I refer to the future, I'm not picturing some kind of image where no one need suffer a protracted and painful death (unless they want to - they're going to have to drag me offstage kicking and screaming). No, I'm thinking the opposite direction.
I might even be said to be contemplating the protracted and painful death of liberty in these United States.

Why?

Take a wild guess at who the dissenters were on this decision: Our new Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and the Conservative poster boys on the bench, Antonin Scolia and Clarence Thomas.

Scalia's opinion for the [dissenting] group said the court should have deferred to the Justice Department's approach. The department said assisting suicide wasn't a "legitimate medical purpose,'' as a 1971 regulation requires.

Scalia feels that, "If the term legitimate medical purpose has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death.'' That may be true if you consider the sole job of the Medical Establishment to be keeping people alive, regardless of the cost. Many people, specifically a majority in Oregon, feel differently.

More importantly, this highlights, yet again, a persistant theme in Republican Policy: Stop Others from doing what they feel is right, even when it affects no one but themselves, because it does not agree with the Republican "Policy".

You dont need examples of this attitude if you've been paying attention and aren't wearing rose-colored glasses, but I'll give a couple anyway: Gay Marriage and the absurd "War on Christmas". Regardless of the choices anyone may make, the only way it will affect any so-called "conventional" (read: consevative/Republican standing in judgement of their fellows) person is that said "conventional" person might see something he/she doesnt like (two women in wedding garb being showered with rice on the way to their shoe-polished, can-tailed car)(the never-goes-to-church-neighbor's great big light-up "Happy Holidays" on the roof of his house)(the favorite aunt deciding that she's had enough pain from her inoperable cancer and would very much like to go to sleep now).
Hey! Republicans! I got news for you. Just because you think something is unpleasant, does not mean it "affects" you. Your mourning is not Uncle Fred's 24-hour-a-day-physical-pain-at-the-end-of-an-otherwise-fruitful-life. Remember Liberty, that thing Conservatives are always touting, i.e., the freedom to make your own choices? Doesnt the Death With Dignity Act seem like a perfect fit?

Now, lets jump forward in time a bit. Samuel Alito is now on the bench, having been voted in with only a few Democratic votes and across the board approval by the K-Street Republicans. Sammy, no suprise to anyone, consistantly sides with the Poster Boys - Bob, Tony, and Clarence. Here's the only thing I cant see: Who's the New Swing Vote? Who will become the next focus of Republican ire everytime that judge tips the balance 11.1% to the "Left"?

And what new ethically troubling strategy will be devised to "correct" the "problem"?