SUPREME COURT RULING: You can arrest those using marijuana for medical purposes

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Per Fox News:

The Supreme Court has ruled Medical Marijuana as illegal.

[kjam22]

I don't know..... but I would guess that Scalia and Thomas were in the majority opinion.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I'd make a small bet that Scalia was in the majority and Thomas in the minority.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"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."

All too often judges just tell the voters their voices don't matter.

Michael Frazier

[kjam22]

I think Thomas and Scalia would both like to be nominated by the white house for the post of chief justice. I'd guess that they both were in the majority side....

Just a guess.

[PISANO]

...and we're still angry??

I guess I am CONFUSED about this law. I know nothing about it. More importantly whether or not this is the Supremes nullifying state laws or upholding a federal law vis a vis the Commerce Clause??

I am all for states rights for those things NOT in the constitution [like abortion] I suppose this ruling has something to do with the interstate commerce clause........which leaves my head spinning.

I suppose I will have to wait to see which justices voted for which side of the issue and read the entire ruling.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

All too often judges just tell the voters their voices don't matter.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is that there are rights that people have as individuals that trump even what the voters want. We're not supposed to be a pure democracy.

[JCEccles]

It seems often we're angry when the court declares the laws created by congress, and supported by the american people to be unconstitutional. We say the court is legislating from the bench. This time the court has upheld laws created by congress, and supported by the majority of the american people, and we're still angry?

This is Scalia's and Thomas's point of refrence for deciding such cases. They'll both be excoriated by libertarians for this decision, but it is the most Consitutionally-sound decision.

When they uphold such legislation Scalia and Thomas are upholding the right of the people to remain self-governing through their legislatures (mostly state issues but some federal issues too, as here). They are NOT passing judgment on the wisdom of the legislation. They are merely saying, "If you believe the WOD is stupid and wasteful, elect federal lawmakers who agree with you and persuade your fellow citizens across the country that you are right."

How can that be wrong?

[kjam22]

I'm for states rights too. But I think when states elect represenatives and Senators who then create federal law... I think that is one way that states assert those rights. I'm generally opposed to the SC ruling that laws created by a duly elected congress aren't constitutional.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Perhaps... But O'Connor was also considered to be on the short list for Chief Justice and she wrote the dissent.

[kjam22]

You and I agree.

[JCEccles]

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is that there are rights that people have as individuals that trump even what the voters want.

And the right to marijuana isn't one of those rights. So says SCOTUS. And a socially liberal SCOTUS at that.

[highball]

Who cares if the authority was usurped from the states by the feds?

Not enough people on this site, I'm afraid.

Too many "conservatives" believe that the government should only stay out of their business. The other guy, that's okay so long as you stay away from me.

Whay they fail to recognize is that we have to fight for all rights, not just the rights we personally like.

I don't like dope, but I think a state has the right to set its own policy. If the people in Oregon or whereven want it made available by prescription, who the hell are the Feds to step in and overrule them?

[TheOtherOne]

Kinda like Santa Claus, only much more unconstitutional.

The old Commie Claus is coming after Santa next...I'm sure he violates some IC rule.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

And the right to marijuana isn't one of those rights. So says SCOTUS. And a socially liberal SCOTUS at that.

You'd think that the right to receive medication to alleviate suffering would be.... under the 9th Amendment, if nothing else.

[Lazamataz]

Nobody can tell me that among the jillions of painkillers and herbs out there, nothing can be found as good or better than tripping on pot.

Tripping.

On pot.

I think you must have gotten your drug knowledge from this movie:

[rwfromkansas]

Well, I am disappointed. This is about the only thing I agree with the libertarians on.

[kjam22]

So you think that states can set thier own policy? What if Arizona decides to let illegal immigrants in as long as they're bringing a pound of marijuana each for state revenue? It's a state thing you know.....

I think th 10th ammendment is often exercised by the people (people being plural) of various states (states) being plural.... elect represenatives who decide what laws they want to live by. Both on a local and federal level.

[sheltonmac]

Which is the bigger threat: a sick person smoking a joint or a megalomaniacal Supreme Court justice whose very existence is defined by the expansion of federal power?

[MileHi]

The Court relied, as the Justice Department had urged in its appeal, upon the Court's sweeping endorsement of federal Commerce Clause power in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn.

Let's see, '42. Wasn't that during the administration of some democrat and part of some set of pink policies know as the "New Deal"? Why wouldn't "conservative" embrace it?

[dirtboy]

Why wouldn't "conservative" embrace it?

The new flavor of conservative would. You know, the guys who are all in favor of limited government unless it limits what they want government to do.