“A federal court finds a situation where state law should not be trumped by federal law? “
Actually, it isn’t that good a decision. Wish it were. The Court enforced an existing federal law barring Obama from spending money to prosecute medical MJ cases. So the court was just enforcing a federal law. Not vindicating states rights.
It would have been a better decision had it been based on the commerce clause. But the Supreme Court ruled against that approach a while back (one of Justice Thomas’s few bad decisions).
I think you mean Justice Scalia.
Justice Thomas wrote a scathing dissent against the majority in Raich.
>
So the court was just enforcing a federal law. Not vindicating states rights.
>
Yeah, let’s not go *nuts* here now. That’s just crazy talk!
>
It would have been a better decision had it been based on the commerce clause. But the Supreme Court ruled against that approach a while back.
>
Commerce? How ‘bout the 9th/10th instead?
Someone might start to say, “Regulate in 2nd (vs. infringed) = Regulate elsewhere? Hey, that can’t be the *same*”,
As if Fedzilla has ANY authority within CA to begin....for any number of ‘issues’. Ahhhh, they went down THAT path and the whole house-of-cards could have begun falling down.