Supreme Court OKs Medical Pot Prosecutions

Fox News ^ | 6/6/05

[af_vet_1981]

Which explains why O'Connor, Thomas, and Rehnquist were the dissent.

• Thomas is pro porn
• Rehnquist is gravely ill
• O'Connor is a liberal

[nathanbedford]

Yes, and he was dead wrong to do so. Whatever George Bush is, he is no vintage states' rights conservative. So he will skip merrily along hand in hand with Teddy Kennedy on education take over by the feds and he will eagerly fund prescription drugs etc.

This is an execrable decision whose implications are not ameliorated because some of those who deplore the precedent might like the result.

[stan_sipple]

Oconnor Rehnquist and Thomas dissenters

[KDD]

Bush, during the 2000 presidential campaign, said he didn't see medical marijuana as warranting national attention. In October 1999, he told The Dallas Morning News that, with respect to medical marijuana, "each state can choose that decision as they so choose." Yet Bush, who has skirted questions about whether he ever used illegal drugs, has publicly changed his position.

Read his lips.

[brownsfan]

"Maybe the Feds can take some resources from the borders to go after them."

Absolutely!
Might also be a good idea to increase H1-B's for and employ them for this purpose. With the government, (you and me), paying all costs of getting them here.
The only thing missing would be to somehow figure out out to outsource some of this to India and China!

*sheesh*

[stan_sipple]

SCOTUS used commerce clause to strike down state med marijuana law,

[brownsfan]

"cancer patients taking illegal medicine"

But... we're looking out for them. Those are the tainted bottles, made in the USA but shipped to Canada. We send them the "bad stuff", so naturally it costs much less. Here in the US you get the "good stuff", so it costs more! /< sarcasm>

[marylandrepub1]

Here's my pet peave about this: How come abortion and risky sexual behaviour are now 'protected' by the federal constitution, but drug use is not? How can the right to privacy, ones own body, and private medical decisions protect the first two activities and not the last one? The answer is there is 'no way'! These are a bunch of arbitrary decisions with no common basis(certainly not the constitution) except the justices personal preferences. No wonder we are on the verge of civil war over the appointment of judges. It's like the transfer of power in a dictatorship where the stakes are very high. It was not meant to be.

[Paradox]

Thomas

This man has just earned an extra serving of respect from me. And for those who say he only votes with Scalia, guess you're wrong..

[RoseofTexas]

Yep! Our whole life style has been turned upside down! Next to these dictators, the ACLU are demons on earth....I'll just call them, along with the RATS...

The SITH LORDS!!

[SedVictaCatoni]

It was with the 14th Amemendment that the Constitution and federal laws were seen to be "superior" to state laws.

That's in the original Constitution, at Article VI, Clause 2; it's usually called the "supremacy clause":

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That had to be the case for the federal government to outlaw slavery, over the objection of individual state laws.

The federal government was authorized to outlaw slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment's explicit ban on slavery, not the Fourteenth's grant of civil rights authority.

[Crackingham]

Just FYI, Scalia voted in favor of this ruling.

[stan_sipple]

Thomas believes in states rights more than Scalia, eg the mail order wine case

[M. Dodge Thomas]

If, like me, you are of a libertarian bent as regards private personal behavior this is of course a disappointment but it's not a surprise - a majority of "conservative" voters and the Federal Senators and Representatives they elect to represent them clearly feel differently about these issues than than I do, and this isn't likely to change anytime soon.

Still, just for the record, I'd like to direct readers' attention to the Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of the Petitioners (that is, in favor of continued Federal Prosecution of "Medical Marijuana" users) submitted by:

Mark E. Souder; U.S. Representative
Cass Ballenger; U.S. Representative
Dan Burton; U.S. Representative
Katherine Harris; U.S. Representative
Ernest J. Istook, Jr.; U.S. Representative
Jack Kingston; U.S. Representative
and Doug Ose, U.S. Representative

which contains the IMO absolutely classic observation that:

"The history of marijuana in this country illustrates the efficacy of federal drug regulations -- and the necessity of their full enforcement."

and to the following argument presented by the government in support of the contention the the private production of marjaunna for personal used is part and parcel of the illicit drug trade:

"Moreover, the record affirmatively shows that respondents' homegrown drug activities cannot be divorced from the overall drug market regulated by Congress. Both respondents Raich and Monson were consumers of lawful drugs listed on Schedules II through V, before turning to marijuana, and respondents' claims of medical necessity suggest that both would purchase marijuana illegally if necessary. Raich also admits to past marijuana purchases. Each of these facts confirms what Congress found: that activities such as respondents' displace market transactions and threaten to swell the illicit drug market."

And that readers here keep these observations in mind as they consider whether they really want to live in a country where the courts accord automatic primacy to a simple majority "up-or-down" vote in Fereral Law on matters of minority rights, and in which the government in power at the moment - "Liberal" or "Conservative" could make even the most major changers in policy at the whim of 51% of the voters.

Because that is where we are heading if we continue on our present course.

[Hacksaw]

Some of us "conservatives" are really quite consistent in our views that SCOTUS is an oligarchy while many of the libertarian persuasion applaud those rulings that accrue to their ideology, see Lawrence v Texas et al, and then blame conservatives for activist federal courts.

Yep. I would bet some of the same people outraged about this didn't have a thing to say when the SC overturned the Texas law or decided that under 18 murderers can't be executed.

[NJ_gent]

From the same President who jumped up and down about Terry Shiavo, yet signed a law as Governor of Texas allowing a hospital to take anyone (including children) off life support if it decided they weren't going to recover from their illness, even over the objections of family/guardian. I believe 5 people have been killed in Texas by hospitals because of this law, including a very young child whose parents fought desperately to keep alive.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Fine and dandy. But it still remains that the majority decision was joined by the five most liberal members of the Supreme Court. The dissent was by three of the 4 most conservative -- even if you think O'Connor is a liberal, she's still the 4th most conservative justice.

Whatever it is, it's not a conservative decision.

[stan_sipple]

Scalia concurrence
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
Thomas dissent
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

[68 grunt]

Don't play with that stupid person, he is only here to make trouble.