Where's this "liberal court" the Right says exists? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 06-06-2005, 07:24 AM

This to me is a slap in the face of voters from 10 states, and a ruling that I believe is politically motivated.

How dare the Supreme Court to overturn fair elections by the people. I am a firm believer that if the people vote for it their voices are to be heard and NOONE has the right to say the election was illegal or to overturn the election in anyway.

To me, this ruling shows that the Religious Right have our justices scared and that they will follow what is dictated to them along party lines (and pharmaceutical company interests) than what truly exists in the Constitution.

This is not just a case about Medicinal Marijuana in my eyes but the people's voices being heard and their will being honored. This sets precedent that voting doesn't mean a damn thing if the government doesn't like the issue.

If this had been a state voting to outlaw abortion and the people voted to make it law, then NOONE has the right to overturn the voice of the people. Personally, I may not agree with the law, but if the people voted for it in a state or locality, then I don't have to live there.

This is a sad day when we allow anyone to overturn elections in 10 states.

I also love the way the Justices talk of overprescribing..... lol.... that is a joke for a society that has prescriptions for toenail fungus and so on.

I also find it interesting that the Dem. Judges made the majority. I agree wholeheartedly with Justice O'Connors' dissent and I applaud Chief Rehnquist and Associate Justice Thomas for recognizing states' rights and respecting the will of the people.

Of note this should not have even been a federal case as the Marijuana in question never crossed state lines thereby Constitutionally, NOT a federal jurisdiction.

===================================================================

Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. At issue was whether the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

The case concerned two Californians, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.

Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/...ical_marijuana

Lebell · 06-06-2005, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

This to me is a slap in the face of voters from 10 states, and a ruling that I believe is politically motivated.

How dare the Supreme Court to overturn fair elections by the people. I am a firm believer that if the people vote for it their voices are to be heard and NOONE has the right to say the election was illegal or to overturn the election in anyway.

To me, this ruling shows that the Religious Right have our justices scared and that they will follow what is dictated to them along party lines (and pharmaceutical company interests) than what truly exists in the Constitution.

This is not just a case about Medicinal Marijuana in my eyes but the people's voices being heard and their will being honored. This sets precedent that voting doesn't mean a damn thing if the government doesn't like the issue.

If this had been a state voting to outlaw abortion and the people voted to make it law, then NOONE has the right to overturn the voice of the people. Personally, I may not agree with the law, but if the people voted for it in a state or locality, then I don't have to live there.

This is a sad day when we allow anyone to overturn elections in 10 states.

I also love the way the Justices talk of overprescribing..... lol.... that is a joke for a society that has prescriptions for toenail fungus and so on.

I also find it interesting that the Dem. Judges made the majority. I agree wholeheartedly with Justice O'Connors' dissent and I applaud Chief Rehnquist and Associate Justice Thomas for recognizing states' rights and respecting the will of the people.

Of note this should not have even been a federal case as the Marijuana in question never crossed state lines thereby Constitutionally, NOT a federal jurisdiction.

I don't understand what the "religious right" have to do with this case. Since Justices are appointed for life it's not like they have to cater to them to get re-elected.

If anything, it seems like you should support the GOP's efforts to get activist judges off the bench.

Oh, and I generally agree with you that it should be up to the states and that the feds shouldn't have any jurisdiction.

pan6467 · 06-06-2005, 08:02 AM

I agree Lebell, and I am very conservative when it comes to states rights.

I link the Religious Right to this via the fact that Ashbrook was the cause for the lawsuit, and that Bush and company (along with Religious Right leaders) were so opposed to the medicinal marijuana.

I think all the talk of "liberal judges" truly does have the justices worried and may (not saying it does in fact) play a part of their decisions.

Again, I am saddened that the "liberal" judges placed by Clinton found that the people's voice cannot decide what happens in their state.

Lebell · 06-06-2005, 08:08 AM

Again, agreed.

This is why I generally reject being labeled left or right, because I personally support medical marajuana.

I also am very irritated with the GOP on this because it seems like they want states rights when it is convenient but not otherwise.

But then I note that the Dems are no better in this regard.

Damn the libertarian party for being so wacky that I can't really support them.

pan6467 · 06-06-2005, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Again, agreed.

This is why I generally reject being labeled left or right, because I personally support medical marajuana.

I also am very irritated with the GOP on this because it seems like they want states rights when it is convenient but not otherwise.

But then I note that the Dems are no better in this regard.

Damn the libertarian party for being so wacky that I can't really support them.

Believe it or not Lebell, I find myself in the same boat as you, scary, eh?

Ustwo · 06-06-2005, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Damn the libertarian party for being so wacky that I can't really support them.

No kidding.

lurkette · 06-06-2005, 08:42 AM

I'd also like to know what this has to do with the religious right. The dissenting judges were O'Connor (usually the moderate swing vote), Rehnquist and Thomas (both staunchly conservative).

The SC overturns state elections (usually referenda) frequently. State laws regarding abortion and homosexual rights have been overturned by courts that find that those laws are unconstitutional. I'd be interested to see the logic in this case. If anything, it's a move by fairly liberal judges to keep in place federal jurisdiction over exactly the stuff I mentioned - abortion and gay rights and a host of other hot-button issues.

pan6467 · 06-06-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

I'd also like to know what this has to do with the religious right. The dissenting judges were O'Connor (usually the moderate swing vote), Rehnquist and Thomas (both staunchly conservative).

The SC overturns state elections (usually referenda) frequently. State laws regarding abortion and homosexual rights have been overturned by courts that find that those laws are unconstitutional. I'd be interested to see the logic in this case. If anything, it's a move by fairly liberal judges to keep in place federal jurisdiction over exactly the stuff I mentioned - abortion and gay rights and a host of other hot-button issues.

I see your point as far as the "liberals" go and I have to nod in that, abortion and gay rights probably were in their mind to keep federal jurisdiction. If that is the case shame on those judges for ignoring the voice of the people.

Again though I reiterate, this was very much a case the Religious Right was happy with the ruling. It was very much a case Bush wanted to win and it was very much an affront to voters.

ANY ruling that disallows the voters voice I have problems with. I may or may not approve of the vote and law, but again, it is the voice of the people and until a new vote is taken and the law overturned by VOTE, it should stay the law...... (except blatantly discriminating laws or laws that take away guaranteed rights in the US and state Constitutions). This case was not discrimintory in any way, nor taking any rights away.

Ustwo · 06-06-2005, 09:10 AM

Quote:

A Divided Court

Joining Stevens's majority decision were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning.

Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented. Those three, along with Scalia and Kennedy, formed 5-4 majorities in a series of previous cases that limited the power of Congress.

Its not surprising to find the conservative judges willing to follow the constitution, reguardless of what their personal opinions are. I would be interested in reading Scalia's opinion, since he did not agree with the majority reasoning.

pan6467 · 06-06-2005, 11:26 AM

I am glad she isn't giving up and that she is willing to take a stand, perhaps this will force the issue and the people's voices will have to be heard.

I do see this hurting the GOP in some red states, namely Colorado and Alaska. I also find it amazing that Bush supporters who claim to be for states rights again show hypocracy by not coming out against this blatant thumbing of the nose at states rights and the voters. Then again, this is the ruling the Religious Right and Bush wanted to see, IMHO for the very reason it takes rights away from the states and the people.

(edit I forgot to add the article..... LINK:

HTML Code:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/ap_on_re_us/scotus_medical_marijuana_calif_1;_ylt=Aj7P2DFxSQDpU9UwsdSyxQGsjA4A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Quote:

Marijuana Plaintiff to Defy Court Ruling By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 19 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - One of the lead plaintiffs in the medical marijuana case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday says she'll defy the ruling and continue to smoke pot.

"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, who smokes marijuana several times a day to relieve back pain.

The Supreme Court ruled that federal authorities may arrest and prosecute people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The Bush administration had argued that states, even the 10 states with medical marijuana laws, could not defy the federal Controlled Substances Act, which declares marijuana to be not only illegal, but of no medical value.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

Monson, 48, of Oroville, was prescribed marijuana by her doctor in 1997, after standard prescription drugs didn't work or made her sleepy. She is battling degenerative spine disease.

"I'm way disappointed. There are so many people that need cannabis," Monson said.

Fifty-six percent of California voters approved the nation's first so-called medical marijuana law in 1996, allowing patients to smoke and grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled against pot clubs that distributed medical marijuana, saying they cannot do so based on the "medical necessity" of the patient. The ruling forced the Oakland supplier of Angel Raich, the other plaintiff, to close.

Raich suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other problems.

Many other cannabis clubs still operate openly in California and other states, but have taken measures — such as not keeping client lists — to protect their customers from arrest.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, often working over the objections of local law enforcement, has periodically raided medical marijuana operations and their clients' pot supplies.

Raich and Monson sued Attorney General John Ashcroft because they feared their supplies of medical marijuana might dry up.

Ustwo · 06-06-2005, 12:05 PM

So if Utah bans abortion, you would accept it from a states rights perspective?

I am for states rights for the most part, and while I can see some potential problems with drug issues and states rights, I think its up to the congress and states to work out without court interfearance.

To me, anything that lowers the federal government interfearance in our lives is a good thing. This includes everything from drugs to taxes.

pan6467 · 06-06-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So if Utah bans abortion, you would accept it from a states rights perspective?

I am for states rights for the most part, and while I can see some potential problems with drug issues and states rights, I think its up to the congress and states to work out without court interfearance.

To me, anything that lowers the federal government interfearance in our lives is a good thing. This includes everything from drugs to taxes.

I already stated if the voters of Utah or any Bible belt state voted to ban abortion, I would accept and respect their right to do so. There is no gray area for me when the voters speak. No "Congress and the state need to work it out", no "federal law prohibits..... (bullshit)", the voters have spoken and as long as it is kept to their state borders.... IT IS LAW.

The ONLY area I would be hypocritical in is if it were a prejudicial (such as banning a groups rights guaranteed them by the Constitution and the Amendments.... such as voting, racial discrimination, age discrimination, naming a state religion, censorship of the press, not allowing the 5th amendment, banning guns, quartering of troops, allowing unlawful searches and seizures, etc.)

The fact that Ohio voted to define marriage bothers me and I found it a waste of money in the ads and morally wrong for the government to have to define marriage, BUT it is law and was voted for by the people and therefore I must respect the law. But you don't see a case going to the SC fighting that law do you? Even though the Supreme court has refused so far to rule on it and precedent has been set where gay marriages are legal in other states, plus states are supposed to honor (I don't believe it is a written law but more a general perception) marriages from state to state.

The gay marriage issue is IMHO prejudicial, however the US Constitution nor any Amendment protects the right of marriage, in fact states have pretty much always been able to have laws pertaining to marriage (age of consent, blood tests, waiting periods, etc.) so precedent for defining of marriage has been a state given right. Therefore, the people have spoken, the vote taken and the law passed.

If the people pass a law that I truly don't like or agree with and it takes away my freedoms (for example turning into a nonsmoking state or a majority votes that strip clubs are now illegal), I have 49 other states in which to live

.

BUT do not confuse this with my belief that if a state legislature makes a law that takes away a freedom or choice without the VOTE of the people I am okay with that, because I'm not. If Utah's legislature decides to ban abortion without a vote, that is wrong and should be fought.

Ustwo · 06-06-2005, 01:26 PM

A 'true' conservative judge, is one that rules based on the law alone. (This again is why I want to read Scalia's arguments) Perhpas you need to switch sides

pan6467 · 06-06-2005, 01:45 PM

I don't think I would ever change sides. I'm too socially liberal and I truly dislike how much power the Religious Right wields in the GOP, not to mention the economics, but that is for a different thread.

Up until the headhunters started calling for judges heads, I never believed judges to be truly liberal or conservative, but they formed differing ideas from differing sources on law and personal studies.

However, now, I truly have to believe this case was lost because of Bush and the Religious Right. I also find it somewhat weird that Bush and the Religious right will now praise these "Liberal" judges for this ruling.

There are other ways for the feds to circumvent the voters, in the 80's Reagan threatened to withhold all federal monies to Ohio, Louisianna and 1 other state (can't remember which one) where the voters had lower than 21 drinking age laws (the people in Ohio voted overwhelmingly for 19 on beer), and Dem. Gov. Richard Celeste worked very hard and did everything he could to make sure the people's voices were heard, however in the end, the loss of Federal funding was too much and the law was moved to 21 WITHOUT a vote of the people.

I am surprised Bush didn't try to do this instead of having the SC do the dirty work and take the voters voice away.

stevo · 06-07-2005, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I would be interested in reading Scalia's opinion, since he did not agree with the majority reasoning.

Here's some opinions from the justices. They're rather long and formatted so I thought it to be better if I just posted links, so here you go:

Opinion of the Court (stevens): http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...3-1454.ZO.html

Concurrence (Scalia): http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...3-1454.ZC.html

Dissent (o'connor): http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...3-1454.ZD.html

Dissent (Thomas): http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/su...-1454.ZD1.html

Ustwo · 06-07-2005, 07:08 AM

I think Scalia's argument basically boils down to the fact that since there is no reliable way to keep drugs grown legally in CA to cross state lines, therefore it falls under the concept of interstate commerce. (I will take his word on there already being a precedent to this) To be honest, I thought of this argument myself and while it is valid I don't like it. I can't really deny his logic though. Nor can I in any way fault him for not siding with the majority opinion.

The majority opinion I have more problem with as it gets more into motivation of doctors and people and basically what is best for them. While I think they are in fact correct in their assumptions (as did O'Conner) but its not up for a court do decide law based on what they think is best but only on the law itself. This is the cornerstone of judicial activism, and what I hate about our current judicial climate. This is the crux of 'liberal' judges that we conservatives bitch about. I would equally bitch about a 'conservative' activist judge but they seem in shorter supply.

Ilow · 06-07-2005, 07:26 AM

I think the bigger point is the "small gov. republicans" asking the federal court to intervene in a state legislation issue. They really do seem insistent on having their cake and eating it too. When it suits them politically they are all for less government interference and regulation, but if an issue arises that they don't agree with it suddenly becomes an important federal issue. They are not called to task enough on this IMHO. If the situation was slightly altered and it was a Democrat admin. asking the judges to intervene in a "conservative" issue" such as concealed weapons or something, in TX, can you imagine the uproar!?

Ustwo · 06-07-2005, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilow

I think the bigger point is the "small gov. republicans" asking the federal court to intervene in a state legislation issue. They really do seem insistent on having their cake and eating it too. When it suits them politically they are all for less government interference and regulation, but if an issue arises that they don't agree with it suddenly becomes an important federal issue. They are not called to task enough on this IMHO. If the situation was slightly altered and it was a Democrat admin. asking the judges to intervene in a "conservative" issue" such as concealed weapons or something, in TX, can you imagine the uproar!?

It was the conservative judges and ONLY the conservative judges who voted against this.

These are the people we republicans like to see on the bench.

Scalia, a conservative who ruled againt the CA law, did so based solely on past law and precedent.

It was the liberal side of the court who ruled against the law based on whats 'best'.

So while undoubtedly there were republicans who wanted this law struck down on their moral convictions, only the republicans on the court said the law should be upheld.

I'd say the system worked quite well there. Had the court had more like Thomas and less like Ginsberg, you would have had a very different headline yesterday.

stevo · 06-07-2005, 07:44 AM

If I was to say this quote came from limbaugh I'm not sure how it will be taken, but here's a quote from transcrips of mondays show. He speaks of a 1942 supreme court ruling on interstate commerce that was apparently referenced a lot in this latest supreme court decision.

Quote:

...there was a 1942 case Wickard vs. Filburn, and in that case the Supreme Court issued what is a ridiculous decision, holding that a farmer who had grown wheat on his own farm for his own use and consumption and which was never sold or traded out of the state, was nonetheless involved in interstate commerce because the fact that he did not sell his wheat out of state or purchase wheat out of state for his own use, somehow effected interstate commerce. This is what they ruled. In other words, there would no longer be any limits to the federal government's power to regulate state and private economic activity. Now, this is not what the framers intended or what the Constitution provides. But this is what the 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn Supreme Court case resulted in...

Now, the court did in fact, we know this much, the court did in fact rely heavily on Wickard vs. Filburn in making this ruling. That's the case which brought us the New Deal, that is the case which made the New Deal constitutional, if you will, 1942, commerce clause includes commerce solely within a state. The interstate commerce clause deals with the commerce among the several states, but the 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn case said no, no, no, no, interstate commerce can be commerce within a state...

He (Justice Stevens) did say in this case if Congress wants to change this they can write a law specific to it.

The other reason Congress has to write a law specific to it is because the US Supreme Court in 1942, in order to authorize the New Deal and make it constitutional, went ahead and changed the Constitution without there being such a law on the books. So Congress now has to go back and correct what the 1942 Supreme Court did if they want to limit interstate commerce to one state or prohibit interstate commerce from including one state. It's now up to Congress by this decision to go back and say, "No, no, no, no, Wickard vs. Filburn, that's not what we meant. If a state passes a law on medical marijuana, and the people there vote for it, the representatives vote for it, that's not interstate commerce."

So thats what rush thinks on the subject. I know most of you probably wont' care, but I thought it elaborates on a point of view on the subject.

Ustwo · 06-07-2005, 08:09 AM

While I'm happy that Scalia did not rely heavily on this ruling, it is indeed ridiculous. It shows another reason for keeping presidential terms limited to 2.

pan6467 · 06-07-2005, 01:41 PM

Stevo, thank you for the links and transcripts from Rush. (May not like his politics or how he presents them, but he is entertaining and can at times provide some good info.... even if it is biased and 1 sided.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilow

I think the bigger point is the "small gov. republicans" asking the federal court to intervene in a state legislation issue. They really do seem insistent on having their cake and eating it too. When it suits them politically they are all for less government interference and regulation, but if an issue arises that they don't agree with it suddenly becomes an important federal issue. They are not called to task enough on this IMHO. If the situation was slightly altered and it was a Democrat admin. asking the judges to intervene in a "conservative" issue" such as concealed weapons or something, in TX, can you imagine the uproar!?

I agree, but the Dems do the same thing. It's partisan politics and unfortunately, the mood in BOTH parties now is that the other party is 100% evil and to disagree with them no matter what. It's sad because both parties offer good and valuable things.

My belief is if the GOP were to be truly fiscally conservative (as they say they are) and had less allegiance to the Religious Right and controlled government spending, while the Dems, controlled societal issues and kept programs alive, and the 2 parties could get along and work together, perhaps we'd have a much stronger country and a place where the pessimism our country now is flooded in would be optimism. (Of course there are those (on both sides) that truly want it all their way and would never ever want to share power, and that is what is destroying us..... too powerhungry, too greedy the parties are, not willing to work together.)

That's what made Clinton so hated and so loved (no in between) he wanted to take the best ideas from both parties and leave the hatemongering where it belonged.... in the trash. Unfortunately, that was his downfall, the Dems. wanted it all and failed to help him when he needed it. The GOP just hated him because they knew if he could achieve what he wanted they would really be a hurting party. So instead both parties worked to destroy Clinton.

Elphaba · 06-07-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

If I was to say this quote came from limbaugh I'm not sure how it will be taken, but here's a quote from transcrips of mondays show. He speaks of a 1942 supreme court ruling on interstate commerce that was apparently referenced a lot in this latest supreme court decision.

Thanks for the original precident, Stevo. I still don't get how interstate commerce comes into play. Wheat was and continues to be a legal-to-grow product. Ten states have made medicinal marijuana legal *within* the state.

::Scratches head::

Lebell · 06-07-2005, 02:31 PM

You know, when you guys make the effort, you can put together a damn interesting thread.

Congrats

jbw97361 · 06-07-2005, 03:05 PM

the problem is that there is a FEDERAL LAW that says no marijuana. The court is simply upholding the FEDERAL LAW. IF you dont like it, change the law then. Judges aren't there to make laws, only to uphold the constitution.

Personally, I think that the Fed court system should be kept out of state laws and decisions about them.

Elphaba · 06-07-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbw97361

the problem is that there is a FEDERAL LAW that says no marijuana. The court is simply upholding the FEDERAL LAW. IF you dont like it, change the law then. Judges aren't there to make laws, only to uphold the constitution.

Personally, I think that the Fed court system should be kept out of state laws and decisions about them.

I think the Supremes were inviting Congress to change the law for medicinal use. Frankly, I don't see that happening.

roachboy · 06-07-2005, 03:57 PM

i agree with elphaba on this one--by the time the case came to the supremes, it had been narrowed to a question of precedence (federal vs. state law) first and the actual topic and hand a distant second. from that viewpoint, the obvious way out was to punt toward congress.

but nothing good in this direction will originate from congress so long as tha far right has the role that it has. and i am sure the supremes knew this.

j8ear · 06-07-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

but nothing good in this direction will originate from congress so long as tha far right has the role that it has. and i am sure the supremes knew this.

Not entirely surprised that you would write this, but I wanted you to be aware of two pieces of legislation pending in congress as we speak:

The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment would bar the Justice Department from raiding the homes of patients who use marijuana in states where it's legal

and

Another bill, the "Truth in Trials Act," would let juries know when a defendant in federal court is being prosecuted for marijuana-related crimes in states where the drug is legal.

These from "far right" controlled houses of congress? Amazing.

It's funny how the fringe left likes to paint Thomas as nothing but a water boy for Scalia. Once again, and as usual, incorrect. Kind off like the "far right" hyperbole of the the legislatives branches leanings.

Ustwo, as usual, has painted the clearest picture of this issue, Scalia's anomoly not withstanding. The liberal court sided with the federal government, while the conservative court sided with federalism. Federalism lost in this issue and liberal activism prevailed.

A birght and shining star of the opinion, imho, was a footnote offered by the majority's author, to wit:

Stevens, in footnote 37, suggests that "evidence proferred by respondents . . . if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I."

It has been theorized that this is a signal to lower courts to give serious consideration to any medical marijuana proponents seeking a review of a DEA reclassification hearing under the current Controlled Substances Act, and a warning to the DEA to take those arguments seriously.

If nothing else I take from this opinion two things. When the federal government can possibly exert control over it's citizens the left will OK it, since this is the only avenue available for the left to advance any of it's initiatives...and Scalia is no friend to any defense attorney, and is very unpredictable in his interpretation of federalism.

It was also intersting to read some liberal justices gibberish about how the citizens can use the ballot box to manifest changes with respect to maryjane and its medicinal use while this very issue is the direct result of voters having a say in the matter.

-bear

pan6467 · 06-07-2005, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbw97361

the problem is that there is a FEDERAL LAW that says no marijuana. The court is simply upholding the FEDERAL LAW. IF you dont like it, change the law then. Judges aren't there to make laws, only to uphold the constitution.

Personally, I think that the Fed court system should be kept out of state laws and decisions about them.

Ah, but that is the problem, intrastate and interstate are 2 totally differing aspects in the Constitution.

The Constitution makes clear items crossing state lines are under federal jurisdiction, items staying within statelines are solely left to the state. While there maybe precedent the SC has overturned themselves in the past (it is part of the "living" Constitution that allows the courts to correct themselves as times change). The precedent setting case in question is an excuse, IMHO, to find a reason to side the way the administration so desired. The excuse that this medicinal marijuana will cross statelines and thus become a federal issue is bullshit. I am sure these states have controls to show exactly how much is grown and how much is consumed.

What several people on this board fail to recognize is BOTH sides take control and expand federal rule over and beyond what is reasonable, neither side is perfect and neither side is totally evil, (my stance is I prefer left of center socially and right of center fiscally). I find it hypocritical to support a president that supported this ruling and in the next breath say the president's party is the one supporting states rights. So to claim one side is truly more accepting of state's rights falls on deaf ears here. Case in point, the Reagan blackmailing in the 80's of Ohio, Louisianna and the 3rd state I can't remember, and the blackmailing to get states to accept federal law where federal law has no jurisdiction still goes on with Bush.

As for the 2 bills mentioned (The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment and "Truth in Trials Act"), while they maybe sponsored by GOP, I will be thoroughly amazed if the GOP Congress passes them or Bush signs them into law. And I would be interested what are truly in those bills and how they pertain to this case without interfering with state rights or the voters voices.

Now my question is, if the GOP is so for state rights, then why was it Ashcroft that made this a federal case, while Reno and Clinton allowed it to go on without any interference? Which party in that scenario sounds more supporting of the will of the people in this particular case?

shakran · 06-07-2005, 08:01 PM

while I do not agree with the concept that medicine should be withheld from patients, the supreme court did what it's supposed to do. It interpreted the laws without changing them. The only time a court should change a law is when it abolishes the law because the law is unconstitutional.

Now, Congress should immediately move to make this legal. Marijuana is no more addictive or dangerous than morphine, yet we haven't made it illegal for patients in pain to get morphine. The very idea that we should withhold medicine because some people abuse it is absurd, and frankly very scary.

After all, people abuse all sorts of medicines. Coedine, morphine, sudafed, etc. Are they gonna make those illegal too, just because some idiots abuse it?

Seems pretty stupid - and mean-spirited - to me.

pan6467 · 06-07-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

while I do not agree with the concept that medicine should be withheld from patients, the supreme court did what it's supposed to do. It interpreted the laws without changing them. The only time a court should change a law is when it abolishes the law because the law is unconstitutional.

Actually, the SC's job is to interpret the Costitution regardless of law. It is the check and balance for the Judicial branch. Constitutionally, this case should have allowed the state the right to allow medicinal marijuana. However, they chose to go by a law that in my mind has no bearing on the case. They chose to ignore the Constitution and instead allowed and made a law constitutional.

See this is where I truly find the GOP crying over a matter they refuse to see as the true problem and find the courts the easy scapegoats.

A court does NOT make law (regardless of what you believe), they interpret laws and will find precedents supporting their case and the laws they find pertinent to the case.

In this case, however, the precedent is outdated and the law is federal therefore Constitutionally should not have been applicable to this case (as it is the government's constitutional duty to PROVE the medicinal marijauna crosses statelines and is abused AND NOT the people's duty to prove innocence (innocent UNTIL proven guilty).

Again, I argue that by their finding, they strengthen what the Federal government can do, and whatever law they chose to use as precedence.

Show me one case where the bench made a law..... I highly doubt you can. Instead the bench probably found a law that was already there unconstitutional or supported a law that legislature and executive branches had put into place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Now, Congress should immediately move to make this legal. Marijuana is no more addictive or dangerous than morphine, yet we haven't made it illegal for patients in pain to get morphine. The very idea that we should withhold medicine because some people abuse it is absurd, and frankly very scary.

After all, people abuse all sorts of medicines. Coedine, morphine, sudafed, etc. Are they gonna make those illegal too, just because some idiots abuse it?

Seems pretty stupid - and mean-spirited - to me.

There's a HUGE reason morphine is legal and medicinal marijuana isn't. It's IMHO, a reason Bush and many who are in the pharmaceuticals pocket wanted the result they got.

That is marijuana can be grown anywhere and doesn't need to be processed or formulated or whatever. In essence it is cheap and big business pharmaceuticals would lose money on the meds this would supplant (glaucoma meds, painkillers, etc). They cannot allow this to happen so I am sure they will lobby heavily against any bill allowing it to happen and we will never see one.

As for meds being withheld, I am sure there are quite a few out there that are, simply from a business and profit stance.

Mean spirited = no
Stupid = depends which side you are on
PROFIT DRIVEN = YES

dy156 · 06-07-2005, 09:59 PM

Scalia is still my favorite Justice, just because he's fun, but don't doubt for an instant that this was not an entirely political move on his part. He's gunning for the Chief Justice nomination, and is plenty crafty.

In his concurring opinion, he was able to:
1. make the more "liberal" justices look like they were not following the law as well as he did, or would have.
2. provide soccer-mom-supported Senators from, say, Oklahoma that are very Republican but not principle-based conservatives cover for voting for him by siding with the outlawing-drugs-because-drugs-are-bad crew.
3. appeal to Bush --see point 2., above.
4. Distance himself from the "arch conservatives" Rehnquist and Thomas percieved by some as on the fringe right, and potentially embarassing to Bush who doesn't want another huge fight in the Senate.

Scalia easily could have picked apart and demolished the majority, had he chosen to do so. I'm not saying it would be easy, or that I could, but Scalia (and his top of the nation law clerks) could have. Well, I might have been able to come up with an outline, just don't feel like putting forth that much effort, especially late at night. (On second thought, he could have just issued one of his " Come on, people, this is rediculous and totally absurd" opinions without a detailed roadmap or outline.)

Other thoughts;
-Thanks for those links. I'd read this story but was curious to really delve into it, but did not want to waste alot of time searching for the opinions. I appreciate it.
-Should we be surprised that the more "liberal" justices were trying to play against type, but were actually ruling that the Federal Government has the power to make decisions? uhm.. No.
-j8ear seems very well informed.
-With all due respect to Rush Limbaugh, he's wrong. Quite often I come to the same conclusions as he does, but a very different logical progression leads me there. Though the majority mentioned the Wickard v Fillburn case, Scalia was actually using that train of thought to flesh out the majority's opinion more than the majority did. Limbaugh gives the majority too much credit.
Scalia said that the Congress has the power to regulate Interstate Commerce, and to legislate broadly to effectuate that power through the necessary and proper clause. Congress passed a great big controlled substances package, and to do so, it had to regulate everything about controlled substances, including the use of marijuana even by sick people growing it in California. Similarly, in the 1930s, Congress legislated the sale of grain commodities, and to do so, had to regulate everything about the sale and price of grain commodities, which affected this one farmer who was just growing grain for himself.
On the other hand, Congress did not pass a major this-is-where-you-can-sell-and-have-guns-and-where-you-can't package, it just said that you can't have them near schools. This had nothing to do with interstate commerce, and it was at an opportune time for Rehnquist to check the Congress. Thus, Lopez threw out that law as an overstepping of Congressional authority under the commerce clause.

This ruling sucks, and I bet those that have said Congress will not follow the "instructions" in the case are right, for now, but I really think that in the long run this decision will be a turning point in, well, marijuana history. Either it will be the catalyst for those that are willing to look at the issue for the first time in a way that they have not and would not, despite the slowly growing number of state referendums, or it will be the death knell for acceptence of marijuana.

shakran · 06-08-2005, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Mean spirited = no
Stupid = depends which side you are on
PROFIT DRIVEN = YES

You can be profit driven and still mean spirited. Allowing millions to suffer so you can make a buck is pretty mean spirited.

And I never said the court made laws. Often times, however, they clarify existing laws to say things the original authors never intended.

j8ear · 06-08-2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dy156

Scalia is still my favorite Justice, just because he's fun, but don't doubt for an instant that this was not an entirely political move on his part. He's gunning for the Chief Justice nomination, and is plenty crafty.

I hadn't thought of this possibility and now that you bring it up I think it makes perfect sense.

Regardless of how he voted the issue would have ended up the same.

He is indeed very crafty, and has also always been my favorite.

A true patriot and brilliant justice. Your take on the matter, which upon reflection, is spot on, imho, only reinforces this for me.

I really hope he is made the Chief Justice and that his associate justice position is filled by a black jewish female of similar leanings...just to make the democrats more and more irrelevant in the daily discourse of American Politics. They will fight tooth and nail no matter who Bush nominates (assuming a nomination is required) and the more rope the democrats are given to hang themselves the better.

Off to read Scalia's opinion only concurring with the decision of majority, and definately not agreeing with the majorities opinion.

-bear

j8ear · 06-08-2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

There's a HUGE reason morphine is legal and medicinal marijuana isn't. It's IMHO, a reason Bush and many who are in the pharmaceuticals pocket wanted the result they got.

That is marijuana can be grown anywhere and doesn't need to be processed or formulated or whatever. In essence it is cheap and big business pharmaceuticals would lose money on the meds this would supplant (glaucoma meds, painkillers, etc). They cannot allow this to happen so I am sure they will lobby heavily against any bill allowing it to happen and we will never see one.

Except for your injection of "Bush" into this mix (PharmaCos are equal opportunity whores, imho)...this is a very savvy position and one which also makes incredible sense.

I exclude Bush because I believe his position is one of an addict who believes that self control and substance abuse is best "regulated" or criminalized by the feds.

Another reason personally, why Bush is by no means a "conservative" at all.

-bear

Ustwo · 06-08-2005, 08:30 AM

I agree thats a great take on Scalia and his stance.

pan6467 · 06-08-2005, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Except for your injection of "Bush" into this mix (PharmaCos are equal opportunity whores, imho)...this is a very savvy position and one which also makes incredible sense.

I exclude Bush because I believe his position is one of an addict who believes that self control and substance abuse is best "regulated" or criminalized by the feds.

Another reason personally, why Bush is by no means a "conservative" at all.

-bear

I do agree the Pharms are equal oppurtunity whores (as are most lobby groups and corporations).

And I agree, your take on Bush is right, but I included him because he has allowed the FDA to become funded by drug companies and has eased up on regulations. (Clinton did this also to some degree but kept regulations heightened.)

pan6467 · 06-08-2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

You can be profit driven and still mean spirited. Allowing millions to suffer so you can make a buck is pretty mean spirited.

And I never said the court made laws. Often times, however, they clarify existing laws to say things the original authors never intended.

Yes you can be both, however I don't think the companies are being mean spirited in nature. I just don't believe they care so long as the profits are there.

No, you haven't said the courts made laws but there are many GOP on this board and out in the real world who say it.

I should also prequalify this, there are judges (such as the Indiana judge) that are lowest on the totem pole and will make rulings on the flimsiest of excuses to suit their personal agendas , however, 99% are usually overturned in the next step. But the higher you go the more the judges rely on previous cases, precedents and the Constitution.

As for Scalia, I believe he is too close to Cheney, should have recused himself in the case against Cheney and would be a very poor choice, a very dividing choice between parties and we don't need that.

Ustwo · 06-08-2005, 09:46 AM

You will have to forgive me if I still can't figure out how the GOP is at fault here, considering how the ruling went.

We had 5 activist judges and Scailia, vrs two very conservative and one mostly conservative judge.

Invoking Bush's name or the GOP at this point of the debate is pointless.

chickentribs · 06-08-2005, 11:09 AM

I still don't understand why lawyers are making decisions about medicine. The laws should involve a framework to handle the different classes of drugs, but the AMA or the Surgeon General's office should be classifying the individual drugs. Keep my healthcare out of the the games and muckraking...

meembo · 06-08-2005, 04:29 PM

I see this as a case of interstate commerce, as the court said. The court can't ignore viable federal law, even if it seems dated and unpopular -- and I'm a dyed-in-the -wool liberal! I think the real test of the political waters is whether the Justice Department tries to prosecute anyone until the time a change in federal law is proposed in Congress, and that will take several attempts as well. This federal law is as stupid as the old sodomy laws of the South. The mission is to get the old law off the books.

06-06-2005, 07:24 AM	#1 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Where's this "liberal court" the Right says exists? This to me is a slap in the face of voters from 10 states, and a ruling that I believe is politically motivated. How dare the Supreme Court to overturn fair elections by the people. I am a firm believer that if the people vote for it their voices are to be heard and NOONE has the right to say the election was illegal or to overturn the election in anyway. To me, this ruling shows that the Religious Right have our justices scared and that they will follow what is dictated to them along party lines (and pharmaceutical company interests) than what truly exists in the Constitution. This is not just a case about Medicinal Marijuana in my eyes but the people's voices being heard and their will being honored. This sets precedent that voting doesn't mean a damn thing if the government doesn't like the issue. If this had been a state voting to outlaw abortion and the people voted to make it law, then NOONE has the right to overturn the voice of the people. Personally, I may not agree with the law, but if the people voted for it in a state or locality, then I don't have to live there. This is a sad day when we allow anyone to overturn elections in 10 states. I also love the way the Justices talk of overprescribing..... lol.... that is a joke for a society that has prescriptions for toenail fungus and so on. I also find it interesting that the Dem. Judges made the majority. I agree wholeheartedly with Justice O'Connors' dissent and I applaud Chief Rehnquist and Associate Justice Thomas for recognizing states' rights and respecting the will of the people. Of note this should not have even been a federal case as the Marijuana in question never crossed state lines thereby Constitutionally, NOT a federal jurisdiction. =================================================================== Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. ADVERTISEMENT The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana. The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. At issue was whether the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines. Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress." California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California. In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses. In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion. O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use." The case concerned two Californians, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities. Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard. In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said. The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454. Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/...ical_marijuana __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-06-2005, 08:02 AM	#3 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I agree Lebell, and I am very conservative when it comes to states rights. I link the Religious Right to this via the fact that Ashbrook was the cause for the lawsuit, and that Bush and company (along with Religious Right leaders) were so opposed to the medicinal marijuana. I think all the talk of "liberal judges" truly does have the justices worried and may (not saying it does in fact) play a part of their decisions. Again, I am saddened that the "liberal" judges placed by Clinton found that the people's voice cannot decide what happens in their state. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-06-2005, 08:08 AM	#4 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Again, agreed. This is why I generally reject being labeled left or right, because I personally support medical marajuana. I also am very irritated with the GOP on this because it seems like they want states rights when it is convenient but not otherwise. But then I note that the Dems are no better in this regard. Damn the libertarian party for being so wacky that I can't really support them. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-06-2005, 08:42 AM	#7 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I'd also like to know what this has to do with the religious right. The dissenting judges were O'Connor (usually the moderate swing vote), Rehnquist and Thomas (both staunchly conservative). The SC overturns state elections (usually referenda) frequently. State laws regarding abortion and homosexual rights have been overturned by courts that find that those laws are unconstitutional. I'd be interested to see the logic in this case. If anything, it's a move by fairly liberal judges to keep in place federal jurisdiction over exactly the stuff I mentioned - abortion and gay rights and a host of other hot-button issues. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

06-06-2005, 12:05 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	So if Utah bans abortion, you would accept it from a states rights perspective? I am for states rights for the most part, and while I can see some potential problems with drug issues and states rights, I think its up to the congress and states to work out without court interfearance. To me, anything that lowers the federal government interfearance in our lives is a good thing. This includes everything from drugs to taxes. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-06-2005, 01:26 PM	#13 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	A 'true' conservative judge, is one that rules based on the law alone. (This again is why I want to read Scalia's arguments) Perhpas you need to switch sides __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-06-2005, 01:45 PM	#14 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I don't think I would ever change sides. I'm too socially liberal and I truly dislike how much power the Religious Right wields in the GOP, not to mention the economics, but that is for a different thread. Up until the headhunters started calling for judges heads, I never believed judges to be truly liberal or conservative, but they formed differing ideas from differing sources on law and personal studies. However, now, I truly have to believe this case was lost because of Bush and the Religious Right. I also find it somewhat weird that Bush and the Religious right will now praise these "Liberal" judges for this ruling. There are other ways for the feds to circumvent the voters, in the 80's Reagan threatened to withhold all federal monies to Ohio, Louisianna and 1 other state (can't remember which one) where the voters had lower than 21 drinking age laws (the people in Ohio voted overwhelmingly for 19 on beer), and Dem. Gov. Richard Celeste worked very hard and did everything he could to make sure the people's voices were heard, however in the end, the loss of Federal funding was too much and the law was moved to 21 WITHOUT a vote of the people. I am surprised Bush didn't try to do this instead of having the SC do the dirty work and take the voters voice away. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-07-2005, 07:08 AM	#16 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I think Scalia's argument basically boils down to the fact that since there is no reliable way to keep drugs grown legally in CA to cross state lines, therefore it falls under the concept of interstate commerce. (I will take his word on there already being a precedent to this) To be honest, I thought of this argument myself and while it is valid I don't like it. I can't really deny his logic though. Nor can I in any way fault him for not siding with the majority opinion. The majority opinion I have more problem with as it gets more into motivation of doctors and people and basically what is best for them. While I think they are in fact correct in their assumptions (as did O'Conner) but its not up for a court do decide law based on what they think is best but only on the law itself. This is the cornerstone of judicial activism, and what I hate about our current judicial climate. This is the crux of 'liberal' judges that we conservatives bitch about. I would equally bitch about a 'conservative' activist judge but they seem in shorter supply. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-07-2005, 07:26 AM	#17 (permalink)
Ilow Junkie Location: Pats country	I think the bigger point is the "small gov. republicans" asking the federal court to intervene in a state legislation issue. They really do seem insistent on having their cake and eating it too. When it suits them politically they are all for less government interference and regulation, but if an issue arises that they don't agree with it suddenly becomes an important federal issue. They are not called to task enough on this IMHO. If the situation was slightly altered and it was a Democrat admin. asking the judges to intervene in a "conservative" issue" such as concealed weapons or something, in TX, can you imagine the uproar!? __________________ "Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about" --Sam Harris

06-07-2005, 08:09 AM	#20 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	While I'm happy that Scalia did not rely heavily on this ruling, it is indeed ridiculous. It shows another reason for keeping presidential terms limited to 2. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-07-2005, 02:31 PM	#23 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	You know, when you guys make the effort, you can put together a damn interesting thread. Congrats __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-07-2005, 03:05 PM	#24 (permalink)
jbw97361 Tilted	the problem is that there is a FEDERAL LAW that says no marijuana. The court is simply upholding the FEDERAL LAW. IF you dont like it, change the law then. Judges aren't there to make laws, only to uphold the constitution. Personally, I think that the Fed court system should be kept out of state laws and decisions about them. __________________ JBW

06-07-2005, 03:57 PM	#26 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i agree with elphaba on this one--by the time the case came to the supremes, it had been narrowed to a question of precedence (federal vs. state law) first and the actual topic and hand a distant second. from that viewpoint, the obvious way out was to punt toward congress. but nothing good in this direction will originate from congress so long as tha far right has the role that it has. and i am sure the supremes knew this. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-07-2005, 08:01 PM	#29 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	while I do not agree with the concept that medicine should be withheld from patients, the supreme court did what it's supposed to do. It interpreted the laws without changing them. The only time a court should change a law is when it abolishes the law because the law is unconstitutional. Now, Congress should immediately move to make this legal. Marijuana is no more addictive or dangerous than morphine, yet we haven't made it illegal for patients in pain to get morphine. The very idea that we should withhold medicine because some people abuse it is absurd, and frankly very scary. After all, people abuse all sorts of medicines. Coedine, morphine, sudafed, etc. Are they gonna make those illegal too, just because some idiots abuse it? Seems pretty stupid - and mean-spirited - to me.

06-07-2005, 09:59 PM	#31 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	Scalia is still my favorite Justice, just because he's fun, but don't doubt for an instant that this was not an entirely political move on his part. He's gunning for the Chief Justice nomination, and is plenty crafty. In his concurring opinion, he was able to: 1. make the more "liberal" justices look like they were not following the law as well as he did, or would have. 2. provide soccer-mom-supported Senators from, say, Oklahoma that are very Republican but not principle-based conservatives cover for voting for him by siding with the outlawing-drugs-because-drugs-are-bad crew. 3. appeal to Bush --see point 2., above. 4. Distance himself from the "arch conservatives" Rehnquist and Thomas percieved by some as on the fringe right, and potentially embarassing to Bush who doesn't want another huge fight in the Senate. Scalia easily could have picked apart and demolished the majority, had he chosen to do so. I'm not saying it would be easy, or that I could, but Scalia (and his top of the nation law clerks) could have. Well, I might have been able to come up with an outline, just don't feel like putting forth that much effort, especially late at night. (On second thought, he could have just issued one of his " Come on, people, this is rediculous and totally absurd" opinions without a detailed roadmap or outline.) Other thoughts; -Thanks for those links. I'd read this story but was curious to really delve into it, but did not want to waste alot of time searching for the opinions. I appreciate it. -Should we be surprised that the more "liberal" justices were trying to play against type, but were actually ruling that the Federal Government has the power to make decisions? uhm.. No. -j8ear seems very well informed. -With all due respect to Rush Limbaugh, he's wrong. Quite often I come to the same conclusions as he does, but a very different logical progression leads me there. Though the majority mentioned the Wickard v Fillburn case, Scalia was actually using that train of thought to flesh out the majority's opinion more than the majority did. Limbaugh gives the majority too much credit. Scalia said that the Congress has the power to regulate Interstate Commerce, and to legislate broadly to effectuate that power through the necessary and proper clause. Congress passed a great big controlled substances package, and to do so, it had to regulate everything about controlled substances, including the use of marijuana even by sick people growing it in California. Similarly, in the 1930s, Congress legislated the sale of grain commodities, and to do so, had to regulate everything about the sale and price of grain commodities, which affected this one farmer who was just growing grain for himself. On the other hand, Congress did not pass a major this-is-where-you-can-sell-and-have-guns-and-where-you-can't package, it just said that you can't have them near schools. This had nothing to do with interstate commerce, and it was at an opportune time for Rehnquist to check the Congress. Thus, Lopez threw out that law as an overstepping of Congressional authority under the commerce clause. This ruling sucks, and I bet those that have said Congress will not follow the "instructions" in the case are right, for now, but I really think that in the long run this decision will be a turning point in, well, marijuana history. Either it will be the catalyst for those that are willing to look at the issue for the first time in a way that they have not and would not, despite the slowly growing number of state referendums, or it will be the death knell for acceptence of marijuana.

06-08-2005, 08:30 AM	#35 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I agree thats a great take on Scalia and his stance. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-08-2005, 09:46 AM	#38 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You will have to forgive me if I still can't figure out how the GOP is at fault here, considering how the ruling went. We had 5 activist judges and Scailia, vrs two very conservative and one mostly conservative judge. Invoking Bush's name or the GOP at this point of the debate is pointless. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-08-2005, 11:09 AM	#39 (permalink)
chickentribs Addict Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night	I still don't understand why lawyers are making decisions about medicine. The laws should involve a framework to handle the different classes of drugs, but the AMA or the Surgeon General's office should be classifying the individual drugs. Keep my healthcare out of the the games and muckraking... __________________ Oft expectation fails... and most oft there Where most it promises - Shakespeare, W.

06-08-2005, 04:29 PM	#40 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	I see this as a case of interstate commerce, as the court said. The court can't ignore viable federal law, even if it seems dated and unpopular -- and I'm a dyed-in-the -wool liberal! I think the real test of the political waters is whether the Justice Department tries to prosecute anyone until the time a change in federal law is proposed in Congress, and that will take several attempts as well. This federal law is as stupid as the old sodomy laws of the South. The mission is to get the old law off the books. __________________ less I say, smarter I am