Oral arguments in Ashcroft vs. Raich before SCOTUS

US Supreme Court ^ | 11-29-04 | US Supreme Court

[ctdonath2]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL : Petitioner, :
v. : No. 03-1454
ANGEL McCLARY RAICH, et al. :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
Washington, D.C. Monday, November 29, 2004
The above-entitled matter came on for oral
argument before the Supreme Court of the United States
at 10:04 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ., Acting Solicitor General,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;
on behalf of the Petitioner.
RANDY E. BARNETT, ESQ., Boston, Massachusetts;
on behalf of the Respondent.

...

[ctdonath2]

Ashcroft vs. Raich is a significant in-progress case which may redefine and limit the gov't's broad interpretation of the "commerce clause". It is also referred to by US vs. Stewart, which has been accepted by SCOTUS and will have significant indirect 2nd Amendment results also based on re-evaluating use/abuse of the "commerce clause".

[newgeezer]

For the uninformed (like me), here's a good synopsis of the case:

Marijuana commerce

By Terry Eastland, The Washington Times, 12/14/04

Ashcroft vs. Raich, the "medical marijuana" case argued this month in the Supreme Court, is less about marijuana and its medical effects than federal power — the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
    Liberals worry a court that in recent years has somewhat limited that power will use Raich to make serious forward progress with its "new federalism agenda." To judge by the oral argument, however, no majority seems ready to do so. Yet if, as seems likely, Raich is decided narrowly, the big issues finessed by the court undoubtedly will return in later cases.
(...more...)

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Wickard vs. Filburn appears to me to be pure communism.

If a farmer can't plant what he wants, it's not his farm, it's the government's.

Not surprising it came during FDR's term.

[ctdonath2]

Can't really judge by the oral arguments. What happens in that phase rarely is indicative of the final outcome.

Issue in this and Stewart is whether something which never existed outside a given state, and which will most likely never move outside that state, and for which there is no legal market, is subject to "interstate commerce" regulation. There is growing pressure for SCOTUS to draw a line on abuse of the "interstate commerce" clause, they're showing a growing interest in doing so, have two ideal cases on the docket, and the gov't's argument is amounting to "we can regulate/ban whatever we want" which is plainly going too far. The result will be very interesting.

[MarkT]

At the outset, Congress should never have had the arrogance to impose restrictions on drugs (less than age 18 - okay) - if a citizen wants to consume and destroy his life, so be it...if he hurts others in the process, there are a number of civil and criminal statutes to cover such acts...

Barnett is a terrific author - I commend to everyone's attention his book, "Restoring the Lost Constitution." It is terrific...hopefully this Court (or the next) will stop abusing the Commerce Clause with all the imperial pronouncements by the political whores in Washington (including Congress and SCOTUS.)

[InterceptPoint]

This case will demonstrate, once again, that political agenda, not law, is the basis for Supreme Court decisions. The States Rights types (in general, the Right-wing judges) will reverse their normal pattern and vote to expand the Federal Government's interference in people daily lives. The Libs on the court will also reverse themselves and vote for State's Rights in order to expand peoples natural right to drug themselves to death.