Moxie Wrote:
Aren't the above justices usually the 'good guys'? Sadly, I hardly follow Supreme Court cases ... unless there's a feeding tube involved.
actually i'm a little bit surprised at how this turned out. o'connor, rehnquist and thomas are all within the 5 member conservative bloc of the court (with o'connor widely viewed as the more moderate swing vote), if i'm not mistaken they were all on the winning side of
bush v. gore.
Old Kentucky Wrote:
Elvis Fu Wrote:
The issue here is federal prosecution, not state prosecution.
Elvis Fu is right, there really isn't much different today than yesterday. Users can be prosecuted today under federal law just as they were yesterday. The difference is that today the Supreme Court gave its nod of approval.
This really is what "should" have happened, because this decision sides with precedent (ie, fed law trumping state law). But we all know that the Supreme Court can do anything it damn well pleases (ie, declaring fed law "unconstitutional").
Some of us were just hoping that "judicial activism" would take a pleasent turn this time.
whats particularly upsetting about this case is that if the conservative wing of the court held together, many a cancer patient could be enjoying a huge spliff. other than scalia and kennedy, this case lined up along the traditional liberal/conservative lines, with the liberal wing of the court going for federal supremacy and the (true) conservatives going for states rights.
the rehnquist court has not been shy about striking down federal laws that it deems outside of congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. this was a sharp shift from years of decisions that accepted even the most flimsy links between anything congress wanted to regulate and interstate commerce. starting with the
lopez decision and continuing with its ruling in
us. v morrison the court has shown a willingness to strike down federal laws. in both those cases, it was liberal laws the court struck down--the gun free school zones act (which said you couldn't have a firearm near a school) and the federal violence against women act (which provided a federal civil rights remedy for gender-motivated violence). i really have to question the sincerity of scalia and kennedy, who were both in the 5 vote majority (along with thomas, o'connor and rehnquist) in
lopez and
morrison, but didin't support federalism in this case when the result would be leaving a liberal policy in place.
also, the justification for medical reefer having a substantial effect on interstate commerce is garbage, and would seem to make it impossible to invalidate any federal laws on the grounds that congress overstepped its authority under the commerce clause. the
decision sez:
Quote:
The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. In assessing the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. E.g., Lopez, 514 U.S., at 557. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Pp. 12—20.
if all that high grade medical cheeba is being diverted into illicit channels, i'd love to know where i can score some (and its not like there's any shortage of amazing chronic coming out of california, medical marijuana or no medical marijuana). but that doesn't even matter--they seem to be saying that as long as congress believes there's a chance it could effect interstate commerce, they can regulate it, whether or not it actually does so is irrelevant.
i'm disappointed the court decided this case on narrow procedural grounds, without addressing any of the bigger issues (like the right to treatment, the validity of marijuana as medicine, etc.) oh well, they still haven't decided the morpheus/grokster case...
