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

To: SoFloFreeper

Good ruling....the US Constitution gives the feds zero jurisdidction in such matters. This is a no-brainer for a conservative justice.



809 posted on 01/17/2006 4:08:52 PM PST by AZRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: AZRepublican

"This is a no-brainer for a conservative justice."

Apparantly it isn't.


812 posted on 01/17/2006 4:13:40 PM PST by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies ]

To: AZRepublican
Good ruling....the US Constitution gives the feds zero jurisdidction in such matters. This is a no-brainer for a conservative justice.

While I agree with you, the source of federal authority for the CSA, the commerce clause, was not really directly at issue in this case. It was assumed to exist.

I haven't read the opinion of the Court or the primary dissent yet, but I did give Thomas' separate dissent a quick read. You can find it here.

He basically called everyone except Scalia a hypocrite, and claimed the whole issue was decided in Raich. I agree.
822 posted on 01/17/2006 4:38:08 PM PST by publiusF27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies ]

To: AZRepublican
You apparantly didn't read the ruling or much of this discussion. The ruling was that John Ashcroft had no specific authority to pick and chose among the various drugs on the market to decide which of them could be used by "killer docs" in Oregon to kill people.

They said Congress could fix that problem.

This ruling is more about John Ashcroft than about the law or the Constitution. Plus, for 6 of the members, it was a chance to kill more people.

823 posted on 01/17/2006 4:38:26 PM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | 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