The majority’s newfound understanding of the CSA as astatute of limited reach is all the more puzzling because it rests upon constitutional principles that the majority ofthe Court rejected in Raich. Notwithstanding the States' "'traditional police powers to define the criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens,'" 545 U. S., at ___, n. 38 (slip op., at 27, n. 38), the Raich majority concluded that the CSA applied to the intrastate possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes authorized by California law because "Congress could have rationally" concluded that such an application was necessary to the regulation of the “larger interstate marijuana market.” Id., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 28, 30). Here, by contrast, the majority’s restrictive interpretation of the CSA is based in no small part on "the structure and limitations of federalism, which allow the States '"great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons."'"
I think he's great! Pointing out their hypocrisy is PRICELESS!
I was kind of disappointed with Thomas here. He properly threw a barb at the majority for flip-flopping from Raich. However, he voted AGAINST them on Raich - and votes against them here - which is puzzling in its own right. And he gave no clear rationale for his dissent, other than he didn't follow the majority's reasoning.
Guess I'll have to read Scalia's dissent to get the legal reasoning.