[Mikse]

But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges! Confused...

[thoughtomator]

They are first and foremost the servants of federal power. Only if the feds have the power can the courts then wield it.

[rhombus]

But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges!

...Who support federal jurisdiction over states rights on most issues.

[Oberon]

But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges! Confused...

Maybe the legal issue was pretty clear, for once.

[mlc9852]

Yeah, but not FUN activist liberal judges.

[dirtboy]

But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges!

This ruling confirms that. Apparently 6 justices didn't read far down enough in the Bill of Rights to see that 10th Amendment thingy. Of course, most of them never have, apparently.

[Jabba the Nutt]

"But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges! Confused..."

They are, prohibition, including drug prohibition is a liberal project, not a conservative one.

The idiotic conservatives tend to take up failed liberal policies, if they've been around long enough. Prohibition is one, 'saving' Social Security is another. Let's not forget adding prescription drugs to Medicare, thank you President Bush.

[TBall]

"But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges! Confused.." You think the destruction of state rights isn't a liberal cause?

[antiRepublicrat]

But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges! Confused...

Activist or conservative, it's obvious that none of them believe in states' rights.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

It is full of activist liberal judges. They just didn't want this to happen, for whatever reason.

[Ohioan]

But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges! Confused...

Yes, it has several, including the one who wrote this decision, John Paul Stevens. Three of the Conservatives dissented.

Frankly, I am surprised and perplexed that they are still this far gone. It is purely a question for the States involved, under their Police Powers. Ohio is not involved, but I cannot smile at a Court trashing the rights of our sister States, which are.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[NavVet]

Funny to see those on the left screaming states rights when it comes to smokin' the ganja.

[HKMk23]

>But I thought the supreme court was full of activist liberal judges!

That perception should not be mitigated by this ruling. The Supreme Court has, today, simply recapitulated one of the worst rulings in its history, WICKARD v. FILBURN, the summary of which you may read here.

This ruling essentially established that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution has no effective boundary thereby subjugating any object, with even the most tenuous connection to interstate commerce, to the direct control of Congress.