Posted on 06/10/2005 5:48:35 PM PDT by MRMEAN
The Supreme Court's liberal bloc--Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer--ensured Monday with the support of Justices Kennedy and Scalia that people sick from cancer treatment will have to think first about a house call from the federal drug police before using marijuana to relieve their symptoms. Even the Court's language was unfeeling: "The case comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the . . . undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, Wickard and its progeny foreclose that claim." Liberalism to cancer patients: Drop dead. Meanwhile, dissents on behalf of medical marijuana were written by Sandra Day O'Connor, a cancer survivor, and Clarence Thomas, whose nomination was fought by recreational pot users. Medical marijuana sounds simple. Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy often endure extreme nausea, and many say that smoking marijuana during chemo makes it bearable. Many of us know sober folks who have done this. So why is this a Supreme Court case? Because this is America, where nothing is so simple that it can't be turned into a federal case.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
This case was all about affirming Wickard vs. Fillmore (the wrongful interpretation of the Commerce Clause that forms the heart of the legal foundation behind the New Deal and modern liberal America,) and not about drug abuse or Marijuana.
Exactly.
Marijuana wasn't the central part of the issue. It could have been any number of things - this time the 'blank' was filled in with marijuana.
The supreme court upheld that the federal government can do anything it wants to do now. States rights be damned - the commerce clause covers all!
Makes me hope that Thomas is appointed chief justice instead of scalia.
The majority opinion emanates from the still-misguided "war on drugs" mentality that has eviscerated criminal constitutional law for the past 30+ years. I was surprised by the court line-up on this case.
Scalia basically said that Thomas was right but it would be too chaotic to go back to the Constitution.
bttt
I thought he was a constitutionalist.
His concurrence tried to justify the majority decision. He wrote it because the majority opinion failed to successfully refute the sound constitutional arguments put forth in the dissents by Thomas and O'Connor. Scalia, however, failed to successfully refute the dissenting arguments. His argument is pathetic and his stretching of the commerce clause has no basis in original intent jurisprudence. On this case, Scalia is a huge disappoint to those of us who believe in original intent/strict construction/9th and 10th amendments.
Who got to Scalia?
I believe his decision was based on recent rulings in Europe.
What the Supreme Court actually said is, "It's not our call. It's Congress'."
Damn straight! I believe his opinion was a dagger in the heart of our hope to restore the foundation of limited government. If he can't side with the Constitution even if means going against some previous misguided precedent then where are we, what is our hope.
Actually, the poster above who referred to Congress is probably more near the solution. The Supreme Court is usually the "caboose" of the three cars of government. The President and Congress are more suited for leading sentiment/policy while the Supremes usually follow public sentiment/policy. (I am not saying that the Supremes never lead--abortion and homo rights being examples--only that they usually follow).
But WHERE will these sick/dying patients smoke their pot? After all, we know that you instantly die from inhaling second-hand tobacco smoke in a restaurant. Won't someone think of the children?
But ultimately isn't the final result regardless of motivation the most profound result of the case? Splitting hairs yes, but it is very disturbing Scalia did this. At some point Conservatives are going to have to suck it up and realize that with truly limited Government comes some things that they may not really like or desire in society.
No,it is their call. Thomas got it right, partly because his belief (which is correct) that current supreme courts are not bound by the bad decision of previous supreme courts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.