Surely excluding the source?I rarely talk about politics since I stutter around articulation of issues, often heartfelt, which does a lot to impede interpretation and discussion. I think I'm more conservative than some may suspect, though I have no way of really knowing what people suspect.
But I was compelled to note for my future self that Scalia's dissent to the Court's upholding Oregon's assisted suicide law seems pretty weird in parts. Maybe I need to read it again. Near the end of the dissent, he wrote:
"If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death."
Which seems like it misses the boat since that includes non-consent and an accurate reading of the spirit of the law should include a non-trivial clarification, such as:
"If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death as requested by the patient." (my clarification added)
Which doesn't seem a subtle difference. Unless I'm missing something. I gotta suspect seeing the words "legitimate" or "bounds of convention" or "proper" are signals for help from a public and a legislature that would prefer help in defining legitimacy, convention, and propriety and any number of areas needing clarification by a thoughtful Court.
A branch excluded from the previous paragraph? Nuh-uh, I'm presuming that all words from the executive branch, conservative, liberal, or otherwise are pretty much always signals for help. :)
Here's a nice metaphor from the dissent:
With regard to the CSA's registration provisions, 21 U. S. C. ßß823(f), 824(a), the Court argues that the statute cannot fairly be read to "'hide elephants in mouseholes'" by delegating to the Attorney General the power to determine the legitimacy of medical practices in "'vague terms or ancillary provisions.'"