but gops oppose judicial activism, don't they?

in retrospect i now see john roberts' definition of judicial activism didn't go far enough.

during his confirmation hearing roberts said activist judges are those who go beyond what is necessary to decide a case. at the time i agreed, but a case coming up before the supreme court sheds more light on the subject.

a lawsuit started by john ashcroft and taken over by alberto gonzalez aims to overthrow oregon's law that allows assisted suicide.

when state and federal law conflict, federal takes precedence. trouble is, there's no federal ban on assisted suicide, so there's no conflict with state law.

to get around that little problem, the attorney general brings in drug laws. he claims prescribing drugs for suicide violates controlled substance regs.

but the suicide drugs are higher-than-usual doses of ordinary prescription drugs, not the kind normally considered "controlled substances."

so, if the court rules against oregon, they won't be going beyond what they have to do to decide the case, but by saying a lethal dose makes a drug "controlled" they will be rewriting law, and that's activism.