US Supreme Court to Hear Medicinal Marijuana Case

VOA ^ | November 11, 2004 | Julie Carpenter

[Wolfie]

ping

[Zon]

A government that can prohibit what a person puts in their body the same government can force people to put something in their body.

For example, people are prohibited from taking certain drugs while many children are forced to take Ritalin. Which government will be first to force chip implants in citizens?

[Protagoras]

Anyone not satisfied with that is either playing political games, or they are outright drug users who want it legalized.

No one need be satisfied with someone else's opinion of what they should use in a free society.

And many who don't, and have never, used marijuana, want it re-legalized.

[Huck]

Even Wickard, which is perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate activity, involved economic activity in a way that the possession of a gun in a school zone does not.

Was just reading Rehnquist's opinion in Lopez (at 3:18 am!), and found the above quote. Do you think there is any chance in hell that a court will ever undo some if not all of the commerce clause expansion described by Rehnquist in Lopez? It almost seems like the medical pot case would be a good opportunity to do it, if they wanted to. And if Scalia believes, as he says he does, that the gubmint should leave it to the states to decide on ABORTION, which clearly skirts very closely with the most grave issue of all, then why would he not also seek to return such a regulatory power as weed-growing to the states?

[Sandy]

Do you think there is any chance in hell that a court will ever undo some if not all of the commerce clause expansion described by Rehnquist in Lopez?

I don't think so, at least not in the near future. From what I've gathered, Thomas is the only Justice who seems genuinely interested in actually shrinking the expanded commerce clause. Rehnquist has been content to stop the expansion without actually turning anything back, and I don't think that Scalia has objected to that stance.

then why would [Scalia] not also seek to return such a regulatory power as weed-growing to the states?

Because the Bush administration is asking him not to. And that request carries a lot of weight, imo.

On the bright side, when it comes to predicting what the Court's going to do, I'm quite often way off base.

[Huck]

On the bright side, when it comes to predicting what the Court's going to do, I'm quite often way off base.

Well, I guess I'll have to hang my hopes on that, then. I've been poking around some of the old source documents on "general welfare". Folks have driven truckloads of laws through that hole, plus the "interstate commerce" clause.

[Sandy]

Check it out guys: Larry Solum's in depth coverage of today's oral argument.

[Huck]

Sandy, you rock. Pardon me while a do a quick hit, and then check out the coverage! I'll put off having supper for this--but I'm gonna go refill my sangria.

[Huck]

This is hilarious...


Stevens: If you reduce demand, then you will reduce prices? Wouldn’t it increase prices?

Barnett: No, if you reduce demand, you reduce price.

Stevens: Are you sure?

Barnett: Yes.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And, it has a different THC delivery profile.

[Huck]

So how will Ashcroft v. Raich come out? I don’t know. I got a sense that O’Connor, Ginsburg, and perhaps Stevens were quite sympathetic to the respondents. Based on his questions, Justice Kennedy seemed quite favorable to the government. One would guess that Justice Thomas will be the hardest member of the Court for the government to win. One might also guess that it will be hard for the petititoners to win Souter or Bryer, who both are very skeptical of Lopez and Morrison. Justice Rehnquist is hard to call. We didn’t hear from him. One suspects he is both pro-federalism/state power and pro-federal regulation of drugs. One can imagine this case coming out 5-4 either way. Before argument, I would have said it could be 9-0 either way, but if I allow myself the dangerous pleasure of reading the tea leaves, I now think that is unlikely.

He left out Scalia. Interesting blow by blow account. Wow. That was cool. I can't ever tell what is going to happen based on the oral arguments.

[Sandy]

A couple of doozies:

Clement: [U]nder the commerce clause, there can be no as applied challenge.

------

Clement: It would not be a good idea for the courts to second guess Congress.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Clement is just being a good kool aid drinking lawyer. Lawyers are whores.

[HiTech RedNeck]

From the excerpts, Scalia seemed to be a tad skeptical of Clement.

[WildTurkey]

but then again we aren't talking about recreational drug users here.

Yes we are. Everyone knows that the medical marijuana scam is just the "camel's nose under the tent for legalizing hard drugs". [Soros]

[Sandy]

Ginsburg: If we rule for you, why wouldn’t our ruling cover someone in a neighboring state who grew their own marijuana for medical use even though the state had not authorized it?

Good question.

[tacticalogic]

Sounds like he's telling them they screwed up Lopez and Morrison.

[tacticalogic]

Ginsburg: If we rule for you, why wouldn’t our ruling cover someone in a neighboring state who grew their own marijuana for medical use even though the state had not authorized it?

Good question.

If it doesn't cover someone in a neighboring state, what does the say about Roe v Wade?

[HiTech RedNeck]

You know, of all the arguments I've ever heard against marijuana, "it's expensive" (for the purchasers) has never been among them. It *is* expensive for the taxpayers... hey maybe that'll be the basis for upholding the jackboots.

[jwalsh07]

My favorite exchange:

Stevens: If you reduce demand, then you will reduce prices? Wouldn’t it increase prices?

Barnett: No, if you reduce demand, you reduce price.

Stevens: Are you sure?

Barnett: Yes.