Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inquest
But that point seemed lost on the court during last week's oral argument. "It looks like Wickard to me," Justice Antonin Scalia said. "I always used to laugh at Wickard, but that's what Wickard says."

If he used to laugh at Wickard, presumably that was because it was so ridiculous and unbelieveable a decision. "...but that's what Wickard says"???!!! So bleeding what - is Scalia a robot? He is in exactly the perfect position to do something about it, which none of us can - he's on the Supreme Court, for crying out loud. He's not bound by precedent - if he was, then the Court could never have overruled Plessey v. Fergusen with Brown v. Board, and segregation would still be the law of the land. The Court is constantly interpreting the law, and finding that old decisions are either incorrect or inapplicable. What makes this case any different?

Well, if Wickard says that Congress can ban or penalize Angel Raich's marijuana -- noncommercial, medically necessary, locally grown, and legal under state law -- then it says Congress can reach absolutely any activity at all. When I was a law student in the 1980s, I didn't laugh at Wickard, I was appalled by it. If Ashcroft v. Raich is decided for the government, future law students will have an even more appalling case to study.

I couldn't agree more. This case is perhaps the single most important case that most of us will ever see, not because of the marijuana/War on Drugs issue (the MJ is merely a vehicle for deciding the larger issue), but because this will determine, for decades or longer into the future, what the role of the fed.gov will be vs. that of the states. Is it to be the Lord and Master, dictating to the states and people because of its outrageously expanded Commerce Clause powers, or is it to return to its traditional and intended role as a regulator of INTERSTATE commerce? We all are waiting and watching.

27 posted on 12/17/2004 10:58:15 AM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Ancesthntr

As a 3d year law student, I too found Wickard absurd, a relic of WWII and the New Deal that strains "effect" on interstate commerce to the point of absurdity. Scalia should see Wickard for what it was: a wartime decision that was tailored for a specific set of facts/cirsumstances, that was an "emergency" measure lacking the aura of stare decisis. I will be very, very disappointed in Scalia and Thomas if they vote to uphold this absurdity because they dislike marijunana.


43 posted on 12/17/2004 11:17:08 AM PST by scottybk ("Pure democracy is 2 tigers and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch." Benj. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Ancesthntr

As a 3d year law student, I too found Wickard absurd, a relic of WWII and the New Deal that strains "effect" on interstate commerce to the point of absurdity. Scalia should see Wickard for what it was: a wartime decision that was tailored for a specific set of facts/cirsumstances, that was an "emergency" measure lacking the aura of stare decisis. I will be very, very disappointed in Scalia and Thomas if they vote to uphold this absurdity because they dislike marijunana.


44 posted on 12/17/2004 11:17:08 AM PST by scottybk ("Pure democracy is 2 tigers and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch." Benj. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Ancesthntr
Wickard, on the surface, IS laughable. One farmer, a couple of bushels of wheat, for his own personal use, is going to bring down the entire United States Agricultural Adjustment Act?

Of course it's not that simple, as you well know.

51 posted on 12/17/2004 11:30:37 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Ancesthntr
if he was, then the Court could never have overruled Plessey v. Fergusen with Brown v. Board, and segregation would still be the law of the land

Brown did not overrule Plessy, in fact, it explicitly refused to do so.

Brown cited "modern psychological research" to forbid segregation's damaging effects on young minds.

This travesty greatly increased USSC power for no reason, since Brown was as pure an equal protection case as anyone could imagine. Deciding Brown on XIV Amendment grounds, however, would have thrown out Plessy, and Warren did not have the votes to do that.

286 posted on 12/19/2004 12:15:17 PM PST by Jim Noble (Colgate '72)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson