[ambrose]

Scalia wants to be Chief Justice. No more need be said...

[Dog Gone]

I do have to say that Scalia's rationale left me scratching my head. I guess he doesn't want to open the tent to the camel's nose of marijuana, but he sacrificed a lot of conservative principles to do that.

[GladesGuru]

Why not? 'Cause he's hoping to make Chief Justice, that's why.

I'm now even more certain than before, that Thomas is the best on that bench, and would make the best Chief Justice.

[Erik Latranyi]

Just like conservatives on FR, Scalia and Thomas can disagree.

Each has a good case. I just believe that Thomas has the better case (in this instance).

[JCEccles]

Thomas: "What have we here? Why, it's two harmless middle-aged women trying to cope with their lumbago and gout, growing a little pot in a window sill box. I ask you, how can that possibly affect interstate commerce?"

Scalia:"Let's ask the 3,500,000 hippies, dope dealers, and Bay Area-educated physicians camped out in the backyard who are anxiously waiting for a go-ahead so they can shove 1,000,000 tons of legal marijuana through that loophole."

Thomas: "Aw, nothing like that will ever happen. The California Assembly promises it won't. Pot will only be used for serious illnesses like backaches. Not even a leaf or single seed of it will leave California and enter the surrounding states, and citizens of surrounding states will not come to California to be prescribed bales of marijuana they can take home in their car trunks. They know they would be in BIG TROUBLE if they did, so I'm sure they won't do that."

Scalia: "You probably believe there will be no money changing hands either, no graymarket let alone a blackmarket for the stuff."

Thomas: "My faith in tormented, suffering, pot-smoking mankind and in the good intentions of the California Assembly is unbounded."

Scalia: "The elected representatives of all the people, including the people who live in states surrounding California, had a different opinion about that when they passed a law to keep that loophole closed, and I cannot conclude theirs is an unreasonable opinion."

Thomas: "Aw, lighten up. It's just two middle-aged ladies growing a little pot in a window sill box. What harm can it cause? I want to judicially legislate an exception just for them. It's the compassionate thing to do."

[right2parent]

Excellent analysis. The Thomas view of stare decisis is the only way to right the wrongs of past activist courts.

[Ragnorak]

Scalia believes that precedents matter. There is a certain validity to this view in that courts must have some degree of consistency or the law becomes a casino rather than a reliable institution. People and businesses make critical choices and modify their behavior based on existing case law. This reliability matters.

In this case I think he is dead wrong.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

I always thought that Scalia would be the best choice for Chief Justice.

This decision changes my mind. I now think Clarence Thomas is the only true Constitutionalist on the Court, and so I hope Bush nominates Thomas for Chief Justice.

[Hank Rearden]

And many/most FReepers can't wait to see Scalia as Chief Justice.

God help us. The Supreme Court sure as hell won't.

[RAY]

Is it possible, this particular federal law could become one of those nullified by jurors?

[PGalt]

Thanks for the post. Interesting comments.

[Tarkin]

And it's actually sad to realize that apart from Thomas the only other judge who consistently votes to uphold states rights is Sandy O'Connor (lately it's also been Rehnquist, however as far as I remember he wasn't so pro-states rights at the beginning of his service on the SCOTUS). See for example U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton and especially her dissent in South Dakota v. Dole (both Rehnquist and Scalia sided with the majority, Thomas wasn't there yet) in which only O'Connor and Brennan dissented arguing that the federal government can't force the states to increase the legal drinking age (imagine that by the way - Brennan advocating for states rights).

[GVnana]

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.

I like Thomas. He's got guts. As to medical marijuana, I really don't care if some little old lady wants to grow a pot plant in her back yard because it helps her arthritis.

The problem is, this is a disingenuous argument made by addicts to open a loophole and get drugs for free. And lord only knows what "rights" we would have to grant to stoned co-workers. Sadly, we once again are denying a benefit to some because of the corruption it creates in the wrong hands. Probably for the greater good that it remains illegal.

[BenLurkin]

"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"

Justice Thomas needs to take a refresher course in Con Law. That same issue was decided by SCOTUS for the government and against the Constitution back during the FDR reign.

[MosesKnows]

The Court's liberals have a very expansive view of the Interstate Commerce Clause

This has been reasonably obvious for quite some time now. However, the liberal rationale has always puzzled me. My puzzle could be hugely diminished if I could find constitutional answers to some of the following questions.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; How does the constitutionally granted power to regulate interstate commerce extend to prohibiting the citizen the use of what is being regulated?

Why was the 18th amendment required before Congress could write law enforcing the prohibition of alcoholic beverages but no such amendment was required to enforce the prohibition of marijuana?

Why is growing marijuana interstate commerce?
When I was younger, it was acceptable for me to produce 200 gallons of alcohol each year for my own use without paying the alcohol tax?

The answer most sought by me is based on several facts that most liberals and conservatives already agree upon. I guess this is what makes the answer so important to me.

* Agreed Upon Fact 1 – We the people established a government with limited powers.
** Agreed Upon Fact 2 – The limited powers are specific and enumerated.
*** Agreed Upon Fact 3 – Congress has the power to enforce law.

Article I, Section 1. All legislative Powers * this indicates that Congress has all legislative power herein granted **this indicates that Congress’s Powers are listed somewhere in this document shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 –17 is the list **the specific and enumerated powers that Congress can write legislation regarding.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, ***this indicates that Congress can enforce legislation regarding the “herein granted” powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The conclusion I draw from Facts 1 and 2 is that all constitutional power is enumerated. If it does not say Congress can, Congress can’t.
The conclusion I draw from Fact 3 merely supports my previous conclusion.

So the question is; can you describe a power that Congress does not have?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Why not?

Cause if stare decisis goes out the window, everything is open to relitigation and literally no issue is ever settled. The current behavior of the courts is bad enough, abandoning s.d. invites judicial tyranny.

[sargon]

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.

That pretty much says it all.

We need a "strict constructionist" like Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice. I'm not that fond of Scalia.

[JWinNC]

"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."

I think this is the key point. Thomas is right.

[planekT]

The biggest waste of time I've ever seen. Some woman wants to grow and smoke pot because she is sick and she thinks it helps her. Why didn't she just keep her mouth shut and do it?

The court decides it's a federally controlled substance for sure, and they even called it a commodity. It must be the only commodity which doesn't have a futures market where it can be traded here. Is it really a commodity? No. You don't have to have it.
I've read posts that say this decision is a threat to States rights and is an unconstitutional power grab. Some posts say this is a correct decision based on the Constitution and that there is no transfer of power.
I think it is a bad decision for this reason. Marijuana may be an illegal substance, but in some states (I believe 9 of them) it has been said that Marijuana should be legal for medicinal purposes because it is medicinal and they want to treat it as such.

There is probably something to that (marijuana's medicinal value). If nothing else, it can pass the alcohol test for destruction with ease (which is btw a legal over the counter substance). Alcohol has medicinal purpose as well, even if it is not widely used for many of those purposes' anymore. I happen to believe that marijuana may very well have medicinal purpose, and though it is not as conclusively well documented or studied as alcohol, it is certainly less harmful then many things you can get with a prescription, and less harmful then things you can get without a prescription (like alcohol, maybe even tobacco).

Cheer this decision if you will. I don't. The Federal Government (in this instance, the U.S. Supreme Court) has decided that you may not grow your own medicine (as defined by your state) for fear of it becoming a whoopie cushion unregulated so called commodity, and without going into the argument of whether it is medicine or not, they have denied you the right to produce it for yourself or others, because of jurisdiction of trade. I guess it does go back to that wheat farmer case. Hey, if everyone decided to grow wheat without the governments permission, it might change the wheat market in a way government had not intended nor wanted. Law of supply and demand be damned. Funny, but I trust the markets judgment in things economical (or medicinal for that matter) more then the governments, for some reason.

[AFPhys]

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."...