Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nickcarraway

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.


3 posted on 06/07/2005 4:44:27 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Dog Gone

Thomas and Rhenquist wanted to go for the brass ring of the extraconstitutional 'Intrastate Commerce Clause', Scalia wanted no part of it and thus stare decisis won the day.


5 posted on 06/07/2005 4:46:14 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Dog Gone
but he sacrificed a lot of conservative principles to do that

Ya think?

Scalia would not know an unenumerated right if it bit him on the ass. He is apperently too weak to take on the FDR New Deal legacy. Why do we need a chief like that?

14 posted on 06/07/2005 4:54:47 PM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Dog Gone

I think the point is that this particular precedent would be far-reaching if overturned. The case being narrow, it wasn't appropriate to not consider the wider effects. No?


24 posted on 06/07/2005 5:08:11 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Dog Gone; Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

I have a suspicion if the other members were split 4-4, Scalia may have had a different take on this case.


89 posted on 06/08/2005 7:57:36 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson