There is a lot of happiness in some quarters about the Supreme Courts decision on doctor assisted suicide in Oregon. I wonder how long the rejoicing will last if applied to things like labor laws, environmental laws, and other laws that roll out from Washington with little regard for the individual states.
So do I think the people of Oregon passed a good law about doctor assisted suicide? Nope (although I may change my mind in a few years), but I think that's their mistake to make. I sure do hope the legal reasoning get's extended to other areas besides suicide.
Since you linked to my post and wondered how long the rejoicing will last if the rationale in this case is extended to other things, I can say, speaking only for myself, that the more of these decisions the better, now matter how "good" the legislation is that ends up being invalidated. As I said in the Comments section:
The one thing I like about Alito is his restrictive Commerce Clause views. We really are very far afield from the Founders' promise of a very limited federal government and the right of the states to decide how they each will live. Although a bloated Commerce Clause has been good so far (mostly) for liberals, there's no reason that will always be the case. Far better, I believe, to have fealty to those first constitutional principles.
Howard Dean actually talked about this a lot - how different states have different situations and states' rights should be expanded to allow, for instance, each to have different laws on gun control. Raich was a travesty and Thomas is right that there is no way to reconcile it with this case.
I know from personal experience its very hard not to like a court decision, whatever the reasoning, that provides an outcome you like, and harder still not to dislike a court decision even if you agree with the reasoning but dislike the outcome.