—...Scalia noted in a separate opinion that the federal government could prevent people from growing their own medical marijuana as a “necessary and proper” ...—
I almost laughed out loud at that one. Preventing someone from doing something and FORCING someone to do something are two completely different things. That is the problem with the mandate from the git-go.
I really can’t believe a single judge could side with Obama on this if they have a shred of respect for the spirit of the constitutions of the US.
Absolutely. When I read it, it looked like an absurd comparison.
Really? If you absolutely need tomatoes and the government prevents you from growing them yourself, are you not forced to purchase them? (Assuming of course, you only avail yourself of legal avenues of procurement).
Two appeals court justices, both friends of Scalia, cited his opinion in Raich to uphold Obamacare:
Both Silberman and Sutton cited Scalia’s opinion in 2005 upholding strict federal regulation of marijuana in the case of Angel Raich, a Californian who used home-grown marijuana to relieve her pain. “If Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption,” Sutton wrote, “it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”
http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?a=rp&m=b&postId=1165037.
“I really can’t believe a single judge could side with Obama on this if they have a shred of respect for the spirit of the Constitution of the US.”
You have identified the problem, four of them don’t, and the others waiver. On top of that, they view The Law as an entity in and of itself, rather than a vehicle for ordering the country’s processes. I never cease to be amazed at how willing they are to continue to sidestep dealing with the critical issues of our time. You just have to wonder how long they can fail to deal with the 2A head on. They are all less than adequate.
“I really can’t believe a single judge could side with Obama on this if they have a shred of respect for the spirit of the Constitution of the US.”
You have identified the problem, four of them don’t, and the others waiver. On top of that, they view The Law as an entity in and of itself, rather than a vehicle for ordering the country’s processes. I never cease to be amazed at how willing they are to continue to sidestep dealing with the critical issues of our time. You just have to wonder how long they can fail to deal with the 2A head on. They are all less than adequate.