[ExI] Neil Gorsuch

[John Clark]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:49 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


> ​
>> ​>> ​
>> To hell with states rights! In matters concerning when where and if one
>> should die the decision should be made by the individual involved not by
>> government, state local or federal.
>
>
> ​> ​
> John your comment surprises me.
>

​Spike, if you know of an idea that is more bedrock libertarian then that
you and you alone have the right to determine when if and how you should
die then I'd like to hear about it. ​



> >
> ​​
> With the current wackiness at the Federal level, one would think you would
> have become a big fan of states’ rights (as opposed to Federal.)  I have.
> Well, OK I always was.


​I know that's not what you mean but for me the term "states rights" has a
slightly unpleasant smell to it, probably because I'm old enough to
remember its association with the jim crow laws of the south.  ​And I
really don't care much if states lose rights, but I do care if people do.


​> ​
> Note that the nomination makes decisions at the Federal level, based on
> the US constitution
>

​Based on the judge's *interpretation* ​

​of the US constitution, and this Bozo wrote a screed against euthanasia!
All judges claim their personal beliefs won't influence their
interpretation, and I don't believe them for one second. Besides, the US
constitution​ is not a law of physics or the word of god, in fact as
originally written in was a downright evil document by today's standards ,
subsequent amendments have improved it greatly but it's still far from
perfect. For example, in the Hobby Lobby c
ase
​ ​
Gorsuch
​ ruled that if somebody does something for a religious reason it's
constitutional but if they do the exact same thing for reasons that are not
religious it's unconstitutional. I don't know if Gorsuch is right about its
constitutionality,  but I do know the entire idea is nuts. ​



> ​>​
>  If states’ rights prevail, some of the 50 states will allow euthanasia
> for cryonics patients.
>

​Some states already do (California for example) , and many say those state
laws are

​in conflict with ​Federal law, so sooner or later it's going to end up in
the Supreme Court and I have no doubt
Gorsuch
​ will find that those state laws violate something somewhere ​in the
constitution, at least in his opinion. And his opinion, and that of 8 other
people, are the only opinions that matter.

 John K Clark




>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170201/dadda985/attachment.html>