Dying to get in

Ooh, this could be bad news. Roberts joins Scalia and Thomas in dissent on a decision that upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law. Not having followed the case or read the decision yet, it may not be as bad as I fear, but the obvious implication is federalism: This looks like something the feds ought have no part of. While Scalia is hopeful on this, when it comes to drugs and moral issues he's a loss. My only hope is Thomas; he's a powerful federalist, so his inclusion in the dissent suggests a hopeful possibility that federalism wasn't at issue.

So, what is it? Did Roberts fail his first federalism test, or is federalism not at issue?

UPDATE: Well, while the decision is not good news, it's not a clear disaster. A cursory read shows Scalia dissents apparently on statutory grounds alone in a lengthy opinion that Roberts joins. Thomas raises the federalism question, comparing Raich, in which he dissented. I'd rather that Roberts have joined Thomas'ss dissent in addition to Scalia's. That he didn't raises a flag that he's not going to be an overt federalist; but maybe it only suggests he'll go cautiously on the issue. The latter would be important, since as chief justice he'll be in a position to persuade, cajole and politic margin-sitters.

My gut? Roberts doesn't care about federalism.