Posted on 08/16/2016 8:25:03 PM PDT by aimhigh
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court on Tuesday banned the Justice Department from prosecuting medical marijuana cases if no state laws were broken.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered the federal agency to show that 10 pending cases in California and Washington state violated medical marijuana laws in those states before continuing with prosecutions.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
ya let the dumb get dumber
So you side with fedgov over the states on intrastate policies?
A federal court finds a situation where state law should not be trumped by federal law? Wonders never cease, but since it involved pot, this probably isn’t anything to get excited about.
Well, I’m so glad to see that this court has suddenly turned “states rights”.
</s>
I think the court is saying the Executive branch is violating a law passed by Congress, ie the Rohrbacher Amendment.
Several years ago, the US Supreme Court held that the Federal Government, under the authority of the (interstate) commerce clause, had authority to regulate marijuana that was grown in California, processed in California, sold in California and consumed in California.
Only Justice Thomas could not find interstate commerce on these facts.
Now the Ninth Circuit says state laws must be broken to allow the federal government to prosecute a federal crime???
I give up trying to understand these robed Rasputins.
Courts are outcome oriented institutions. The law is twisted to get the preferred outcome on a case by case basis.
That’s a little stupid. The feds wouldn’t be prosecuting them for state laws. And the 9th does not have the authority to over rule due process.
red
So, will this work with federal gun laws too? (9th circuit includes Alaska and Arizona). What about tax law? (Alaska has no income tax)
The Court just enforced an existing federal law passed by Congress and signed by the President barring Obama from using funds to prosecute medical MJ. The Ninth Circuit is often pretty goofy. But this decision looks pretty straightforward to me.
“A federal court finds a situation where state law should not be trumped by federal law? “
Actually, it isn’t that good a decision. Wish it were. The Court enforced an existing federal law barring Obama from spending money to prosecute medical MJ cases. So the court was just enforcing a federal law. Not vindicating states rights.
It would have been a better decision had it been based on the commerce clause. But the Supreme Court ruled against that approach a while back (one of Justice Thomas’s few bad decisions).
I think you mean Justice Scalia.
Justice Thomas wrote a scathing dissent against the majority in Raich.
If that precedent sticks, that camels nose under the tent works a hell of a lot better for us than the enemy!
I stand corrected. Scalia was the one that should have known better.
Well, I’m so glad to see that this court has suddenly turned “states rights”.
Good decision. 9th Circuit got it right.
We have a winner!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.