Posted on 06/07/2005 4:38:29 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Scalia was quoted in Ken Foskett's biography of Thomas as saying that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period," adding that "if a constitutional line of argument is wrong, he'd say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."...
Libertarian Ping! (I think the break between Scalia and Thomas and Renquist is the big news out of this ruling - I can't say I understand the legaleeze behind Scalia's thought processes. But then again, who needs to? Scalia seems to me to be a G.W. Bush Republican - increase government in the ways good for Republicans, shrink it in ways bad for Democrats. But shrink it overall - they do not.)
Last time I had to step over an addict, it was a drunk. In fact, last 753 times, it was a drunk. "Crack hos?" Mostly common drunks. People who get violent in the street? Angel dust or booze - which do you think is the main contributor to 98% of violence? Look up the morbidity and mortality numbers yourself.
Ending the Drug War will have no measurable ill effect because people who engage in the truly high-risk, high-impact behavior are too out of it to give a damn about law, and people who might, but don't engage in that behavior, are not deterred by law, but by the risks.
And anyway, which do you think will work better regarding people's behavior: A multi-tens-of-billions Drug War, or a society and economy that values personal responsibility and the private sector more?
On top of which, I have nothing against states and localities being "dry" of any type of intoxicant the local people want to ban. Well, OK, they will pry my morning quad latte out of my cold dead fingers.
Thank you. This causes me to ask an additional question; how does a moral wrong become a civil right? To ask it a different way, what in the Constitution causes abortion to be the business of the Federal Government?
In the case the Drug War and numerous other commerce clause abuses, the problem is an intentional misreading of what were accepted interpretations and settled law up until the New Deal, when FDR led a coup against that document. A "this is what the commerce clause actually means" amendment would be redundant.
Well, duh, I think I already explained that - look up the penumbras (Amdt. XIV):-) It clearly says that the matter is to be decided by the SCOTUS, not by the Congress and CERTAINLY NOT by the states. It also says that abortion must be legal throughout the pregnancy. You didn't know it? Justice Douglas wrote so, so it must be correct. ;-)
In theory, I completely agree with you. In practice, I dunno. If we become more reasonable and tolerant of drug use, we'll end up subsidizing the drug user, one way or another. We've already seen that drug abuse treatment is now a required employee health benefit. What next? Are we going to pay lifetime maintenance benefits to support the lifestyle?
If the real social consequences were death in a ditch and we were willing to tolerate that, then I'd say, "OK". But in today's world, we'd be exchanging a law enforcement activity for a social welfare endowment -- a la Britain. There is not sufficient social stigma in that system to curb the behavior.
So look at the places where drugs are legal or where drug law enforcement is very lax. They are no worse off - mostly better off - than our inner cities where drug gangs fight over turf.
When was the last time someone was murdered over a vineyard or brewery?
I have a suspicion if the other members were split 4-4, Scalia may have had a different take on this case.
I've been to Amsterdam. It's completely degraded. I wouldn't want to spend my life fighting my way down a city block filled with druggies just to buy groceries. I assume the Netherlands subsidizes these folks with free health care, free food, etc. Except in the third world, I don't know where the land you're talking about exists.
Did you even read the article?
"...The majority opinion, written by John Paul Stevens and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy, noted precedents like the absurd 1942 decision Wickard v. Filburn, affirming that the federal government may prohibit a farmer from growing wheat for consumption on his own farm because of the indirect effect on prices in the regulated wheat market. ...
"Clarence Thomas sharply put it in his own dissenting opinion: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
You think that the five liberal idiots sprung the Wickard v. Filburn(1942) case on the dissenting judges by surprise, out of the blue, no warning, first time Thomas ever saw it? What are YOU smoking?
Judge Thomas needs NO "refresher course in Con Law"... in his opinion, he completely rejected the entire notion that "That same issue was decided by SCOTUS for the government and against the Constitution back during the FDR reign" and expresses that he believes that this issue, as well as many other erroneous decisions, need to be revisited in the light of our past 50 years experience with the unintentioned effects of those earlier poor decisions.
Are you sure we have been to the same place?
There are dicey parts of Amsterdam, but those are populated by sober Moslems. The areas around the "coffee shops" are quite safe.
Agreed.
Apparently not. Eye of the beholder? But then, since San Francisco has become the nation's haven of the homeless, I don't visit anymore.
What Thomas said is true: "the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers". He sounds quite foolish, however when he poses it as an if/then statement.
It is not my fault that, by his own words Thomas sounds surprised by the holding in the 1942 decision.
You know, in the law judges are expected to be familiar with precedent and follow it - or give some compelling argument as to why it should not be followed. Thomas did neither.
Thomas is VERY familiar with the precedent.
He believes that precedent was wrong. Period.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
In my copy of The Constitution, there is no wording that states or implies, 'once a judge makes a ruling that becomes law' - Your copy must be different. Justice Thomas' copy is more like mine, I guess.
Thanks to both of you -- I'm going to have to do some more reading.
On the contrary, it is the most charitable explanation. The alternative is to posit that Scalia is simply -- no lesser word will do -- stupid.
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.