Scalia's constitutional dedication.

Conservative judges say commerce clause gives federal government the right to prohibit assisted suicide:

Ashcroft vs Oregon, dissenting opinion by A. Scalia

(Side note to those who care: Roberts signed on w Scalia, and Thomas wrote his own dissent.)

The Court's decision today is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the Federal Government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. The prohibition or deterrence of assisted suicide is certainly not among the enumerated powers conferred on the United States by the Constitution, ans it is within the realm of public morality (bonos mores) traditionally addressed by the so-called police powers of the States. But then, neither is prohibiting the recreational use of drugs or discouraging drug addiction among the enumerated powers. From an early time in our national history, the Federal Government has used its enumerated powers, such as its power to regulate interstate commerce, for the purpose of protecting public morality-for example, by banning the interstate shipment of lottery tickets, or the interstate transport of women for immoral purposes. See Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 321-323 (1913); Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321, 356 (1903). Unless we are to repudiate a long and well-established principle of our jurisprudence, using the federal commerce power to prevent assisted suicide is unquestionably permissible.

No doubt liberal legal types will jump Scalia’s shit for that paragraph. I know next to nothing about the law and less about conservative/liberal schisms therein. However, it sounds to me like Scalia is voting to allow a Federal power grab from the States on the flimsy pretext that although not Constitutionally permissible, we’ve done shit kinda remotely like this before.

Scalia: Strict Constructionalist and States’ Rights Champion (but only when convenient).