Marijuana! Supreme Court Just Says No

OpinionJournal.com ^ | June 10, 2005 | DANIEL HENNINGER

[Archon of the East]

Actually, the poster above who referred to Congress is probably more near the solution.

Yes, maybe but it seems Thomas's opinion was so clearly following the Constitution that the dissenting decision by the court was in fact justified on Constitutional grounds without having to go to congress. Yes they are the 3rd wheel and rightfully so but isn't that their purpose if an issue comes before them to make sure it follows the Law of the Land. And this clearly was not interstate commerce... IMHO

[Paul C. Jesup]

Scalia basically said that Thomas was right but it would be too chaotic to go back to the Constitution.

That's a backwards way of admiting they betrayed their oath to the U.S. Constitution.

[Haru Hara Haruko]

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.

And Scalia signed his name to it. What a fine "conservative" judge.