Oregon not about federalism

Professor Bainbridge has a post about Scalia and federalism as it relates to the Gonazales v. Oregon case (which I blogged about two days ago).

Based on the Raich case, I agree that Thomas is really the only friend of Federalism left on the Court. Hopefully Alito will join him, but who knows?

But Oregon is not a case about federalism, it is a case of statutory interpretation, and what it really stands for is the rule that, in the case of vaguely worded statutes, judges will interpret the statute in a manner consistent with their personal policy preferences. Roberts and Scalia oppose assisted suicide for religious reasons, and presumably Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens are anti-religious and want to stick it to the Christian Right.

Comments

[mikeca]

HS said: “Roberts and Scalia oppose assisted suicide for religious reasons, and presumably Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens are anti-religious and want to stick it to the Christian Right.”

Or Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens want to let the Oregon state legislature and/or the voters of Oregon decide the question of assisted suicide rather than the un-elected US attorney general or the un-elected members of the US Supreme Court.

[Half Sigma]

"Or Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens want to let the Oregon state legislature and/or the voters of Oregon decide the question"

I see. And do they feel that way about abortion? Or gay sex? Nope. They only want the Oregon legislature decide stuff if it makes the "correct" policy decision.

[the27]

Blogger, you are correct. I attended a Legal Theory class during my senior year wherein it was expounded that when legal relationships were not clearly defined for decisional guidance, termed as the legal subculture, the judge would turn to his/her personal value system for this guidance, termed as the democratic subculture. I didn't agree on the terminology, but agreed with the point.