When controversial U.S. Supreme Court cases are handed down, we talk mostly about our understanding of the rights the case involved. But that oversimplifies the job of the Supreme Court. A full understanding of the case often depends on one’s grasp of such democratic principles as federalism and separation of powers rather than rights.

The two new Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, are said to be conservative, in that they are expected to focus more on constitutional principles and less on developing new rights.

In last month’s assisted suicide case, Gonzales vs. Oregon, the court did not rule that we have a constitutional right to assisted suicide, and it did not rule that states are the only government authorities allowed to make decisions in cases of health, life or death.

Rather, the very narrow ruling of this case upheld the value of federalism over the value of deference to the executive and legislative branches of government. The argument between the majority and the dissent was, on its face, irrelevant to the issue of assisted suicide. But, it appears that politics rather than jurisprudence may be ruling the day.

Federalism focuses on the difference between the states’ authority and the federal government’s. Separation of powers, however, is about the respective responsibilities of the judiciary, the executive and the Legislature. In democratic republics, both concepts are important to dilute the power of the majority.

The six judges making up the Gonzales majority said that the U.S. attorney general did not correctly interpret Congress’ Controlled Substance Act. The attorney general had said that assisting suicide was not a “legitimate medical purpose” under the act and therefore federal law could forbid it even though Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act allowed doctors to hasten death in certain circumstances. The majority argued not only that the attorney general’s interpretation was wrong, but that it violated federalism. Health issues, under the Constitution, belong to the states for regulation. The federal government was allowed to regulate drugs under the Commerce Clause, but it could not intrude on state regulation of the practice of medicine.

While the majority focused on federalism, the dissent focused on separation of powers. Justices Antonin Scalia, Roberts and Clarence Thomas emphasized that when Congress delegated authority to an executive branch like the attorney general, that agency’s interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference. If the attorney general says assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose, the courts should not try to change the law. Separation of powers demands that those who write the laws and enforce the laws be given deference in saying what the law means.

Although Scalia, the author of the dissent, is normally a staunch states’ rights advocate, his dissenting opinion ignored the federalism issue until the last paragraph. Then, in a funny but sarcastic turn, he pointed out that judges had used the Commerce Clause to justify federal regulation of many things that liberals hold dear.

For example, gun control, labor laws and civil rights have been considered “federal business” by the fact that they arguably fall under Commerce in Article I of the Constitution. Why, asked Scalia, shouldn’t the Commerce Clause also be used to end a moral wrong like assisted suicide – especially when it involves the commerce of medication and drugs?

In Gonzales, the conflict between the majority and the dissenting justices highlights two things that should be watched as the coming Supreme Court’s jurisprudence unfolds.

First, watch the tension between separation of powers and federalism.

Second, watch the division of judges on these issues. Conservative judges are said to value federalism and separation of powers together, while liberal judges are said to “make up the law” as they go.

Some argue, however, that all judges will be more political than judicial because they pick and choose judicial values based on the issue at stake. Gonzales illustrated this.