Supreme Court OKs Medical Pot Prosecutions

Fox News ^ | 6/6/05

[Celtjew Libertarian]

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.

A few years ago, Bob Herbert of The NY Times wrote a column blasting Thomas for being in lockstep with Scalia. Unfortunately for Herbert, his column was published the day after there were two 5-4 Supreme Court decision, neither of which broke down regular lines, in which Scalia and Thomas disagreed on both.

[AFPhys]

Legalizing pot should never be done.

[af_vet_1981]

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.

It was a conservative decision. There is only one conservative justice on the SC and his last name is Scalia.

[Paradox]

Thanks for the links. Scalia is a friggin genius, even if I sometimes disagree. Thomas, despite the protestations of racist democrats, is NOT an idiot, and could school each and every one of them on Constitutional issues.

[B Knotts]

Thomas is absolutely right; Scalia is absolutely wrong.

Justice Thomas states it so clearly: "Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana."

Game over, as far as I'm concerned.

But the twisting of the Commerce Clause to serve the cause-of-the-day continues, with support today from the "original intent" supporter Scalia.

[B Knotts]

Legalizing pot should never be done.

Perhaps. But that is not the central issue here. The real question is: does the Commerce Clause allow the federal government to regulate every activity under the sun?

It would seem that Justice Scalia believes it does. So much for "original intent." He's just signed up for the FDR court.

[Mather]

This ruling pisses me off to no end. My best friend's sister is terminally ill w/ cancer and she's popping oxycontin like it's candy. But she can't have a joint? Please....They already have a hospice involved & I can't even imagine the pain she's enduring. My wish is that she sees another 4th before she joins God.

[stan_sipple]

Thomas has said he wants to s***can the "dormant commerce clause" line of cases altogether, i say amen; it isnt the Supremes job to regulate the economy until Congress bothers to do its job, if necessary

[Perdogg]

I agree. The Commerce Clause has been abused by the Supreme Court.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

My prayers are with your friend's sister. If when my mother died of cancer and needed marijuana, I would have gotten her some and having gone through something like that, I have a very different perspective on this. It is ridiculous and the population of TEN states wanted this relief for sick patients. Yet,Not even with regulation would many allow this. Christians and Buddhists and Jews are in favor of alleviating needless suffering. So what is the problem?

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Yup, no way can Thomas and Scalia both be the President's favorite justice on this one – and given that this administration has a pretty expansive view of the power of the Federal Executive I can’t imagine George W. Bush would be much inclined to let state law stand in the way of Federal imitative on any issue that mattered to him – I don’t see this President as much inclined to let anyone tell him what ought to do, or be able to do.

Still, it’s a political dilemma: in a world where the CEO of Federal Express tells interviewers that it’s a “hassle” to deal with the lack of national US labor laws and large numbers of Republicans are in favor of curtailing Federal influence in state matters it will be interesting to see how such concerns play out next few SC appointments.

[highball]

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

And yet it was the decision W's Justice Department asked for....

[JCEccles]

Legalize it and be done with this nonsense.

All the pot heads have to do is elect sympathetic federal lawmakers, and prove their case to the skeptics among us.

The Supreme Court isn't going to be the pot heads' superlegislature on this issue. This must be a disappointing turn of events for supporters of the marijuana initiative given the Supreme Court's completely different result in the Texas sodomy case. That case gave them hope.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I'm not saying it's a liberal decision either.... But given that the debate about this decision does not break down usual political lines, it's certainly not conservative.

It's a statist decision, perhaps.

[JCEccles]

With such powerful emotional evidence on your side, it should be easy to persuade Congress to change the law, don't you think?

One word of advice: when you make your pitch to Congress, don't use the petitioner in this case who was prescribed marijuana for back discomfort. It undercuts the whole emotional impact of the terminal cases you will want to use.

[highball]

It's a statist decision, perhaps.

Ah, now you've hit the nail on the head. And it's the problem many people have with W - the suspicion that, push comes to shove, he's just another statist.

If nothing else, he certainly surrounds himself with statists. Statists work on his behalf and in his name, as they did in asking the Supreme Court to review this case.

[stan_sipple]

Thomas and Scalia were on opposite sides on the mail order wine case too. Dormant commerce clause can benefit business but i think too much at the expense of state independence

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Ah, now you've hit the nail on the head. And it's the problem many people have with W - the suspicion that, push comes to shove, he's just another statist.

Yeah... Problem is, most Dems are statist as well. And at least W. does something to defend the country -- more than I can say about most Dems.

[highball]

True, and I don't mean to imply that W is as bad as they are.

It's just disappointing - we start to believe that hey, maybe just maybe this guy's different. And then we learn that he isn't.

I don't bother holding Dems to any standard. I expect Republicans to live up to their lofty rhetoric.