Of course this opinion deals with the interpretation and application of an exisiting federal statute that governs not the relationship of drs. and patients but the prescription of controlled substances to patients. Was the Ashcroft regime incorrect in their interpreation? Certainly 6 justices thought so. It is incorrect, however, to say that Roberts was being activist, at least IM-not-fully-informed-O. He simply contended that an existing statute applies not only to prevent the mis-prescription of controlled subtances for conditions that they are not intended to ameliorate, but also to efforts to kill.
Another way to look at this is this: If one ignores the fact that one likes or doesn't like the result of the opinion, what is it baout this opinion (or any other opinion, for that matter) that makes this deciison "activist?" Activism, after all, must be defined apart from the results in order to allow reasonable analysis, so how so you define it?
btw, sorry for the lame typing; not my strong suit.
|