[sourcery]

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.

[flashbunny]

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.

[ernie pantuso]

I disagree a bit with your analysis. The primary motivation for this case is the Controlled Substances Act. The commerce clause was the only constitutional clause upon which the government could justify its enforcement under the facts of these cases. The government feared that a ruling for the plaintiffs would lead to a legal avalanche that would gut the CSA. So, the majority allowed this fed power grab to continue via the commerce clause.

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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

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