[JCEccles]

The CSA, as applied to respondents' conduct, is not a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause

Gobbledygook.

Thomas agrees with Scalia that the commerce clause may be properly invoked by the federal government to control or prohibit marijuana in derogation of states' power to do otherwise. But he then proceeds to carve out an exception for these two women. Why? Just because.

Great reasoning there, Justice Thomas.

[P_A_I]

JCEccles wrote:

Thomas agrees with Scalia that the commerce clause may be properly invoked by the federal government to control or prohibit marijuana in derogation of states' power to do otherwise.

Gobbledygook. - Obviously you haven't read all of his opinion. At no point does he agree "that the commerce clause may be properly invoked by the federal government to control or prohibit marijuana".

[Sandy]

Thomas agrees with Scalia that the commerce clause may be properly invoked by the federal government to control or prohibit marijuana in derogation of states' power to do otherwise. But he then proceeds to carve out an exception for these two women. Why? Just because.

Uh, because a law can survive a facial challenge yet still be unconstitutional as applied in particular instances. The distinction between facial and as applied challenges is hardly a new concept. There's no "just because" about it.

"Duh, gee, it don't make no sense just because I don't understand it."