Posted on 06/28/2021 11:03:24 AM PDT by zeugma
Am I wrong in reading that as Thomas suggesting he supports the removal of federal marijuana laws?
He has always been pretty anti-drug, but I can’t interpret his objection otherwise.
As fas I am concern Justice Thomas and Justice Altio are the only 2 Supreme Court justices that are following the Constitution.
Yes that's what he is saying
Thomas and Alito carryon in the tradition of Scalia, while the other “Conservatives” defer to the federal executive and lower courts too often. denying to rule on issues that cry out for clarity from the court, while Roberts is a total waste.
He is saying that fedgov’s ignoring the law regarding intrastate possession and sale of marijuana should also apply to the IRS rules and laws, because if a business is legal in the state and the congress prohibits federal interference in that intrastate business, then the business hsould be equal with other businesses under tax law.
Seems to be. I think more than anything else Justice Thomas believes we should have some certainty in law. If the nation has decided this is an issue better handled at the state level, then it shouldn't be dealt with at the federal level. I think that's entirely reasonable. Personally, I am not a fan of marijuana. Would't use it if I could buy it at my local walgreens. Regadless, I believe it is something that is better dealt with at the state rather than federal level.
There are other implications to any decision that might have been made on this case though, which is the real reason I don't think it was granted cert. The main one being the whole 'sanctuary cities' for illegal aliens. Immigration is definitely something that should be dealt with on the federal level, because you need uniform laws across the country concerning citizenship.
Another issue the court would be hesitant to touch with any kind of finality is the issue of '2nd amendment sanctuaries'.
There is a huge can o worms involved here. The court has completely chickened out on all of it. Cowards, all. (but Thomas)
“the business hsould be equal with other businesses under tax law.”
The Constitution does not require uniformity when it comes to income taxation.
“In 2009 and 2013, the Department of Justice issued memorandums outlining a policy against intruding on state legalization schemes or prosecuting certain individuals who comply with state law.”
That should be worth as much as Obama’s DACA - zilch.
The executive branch should faithfully enforce the constitutional laws passed by Congress.
I strongly suspect federal marijuana legalization bills have been typed up and tossed into the House & Senate hoppers.
FWIW Thomas dissented from Gonzales v. Raich—thus arguing against the warping of the interstate commerce clause (admittedly this is a ten second read of the case).
he would like the legal world to be something other than completely arbitrary so that citizens can figure out what the hell is supposedly going on and how they should behave—this is more fundamental than pro/anti drug
You appear to be saying that equality under the law doesn’t mean equal treatment by the IRS - that is, equal application of the rules as written.
Is that what you mean? If so, I disagree.
Any case that shows Congress has exceeded its bounds on interstate commerce by declaring everything under the sun as "interstate commerce" when it really isn't has a chance to reign in Congress' abusive power bigly. For instance, we all know the Roberts' SCOTUS allowed Obamacare with the individual mandate to slide because the mandate was "just a tax". But without the mandate, the other issue is that Congress can't tell us what we have to buy or can't buy without calling health insurance an interstate commerce -- which they describe because the Affordable Care Act mandates that we all be allowed to buy insurance from companies in other states. So when Obamacare was being taken to court one of the arguments the libs were making for it was it's an interstate commerce and therefore within Congress' purview.
And that's just Obamacare. We could go on and on with other slight of hands to label anything Congress wants as "interstate commerce" to let them slide by the 10th Amendment's "not delegated" clause that protects us from Congressional overreach.
That case was one of a line of cases that go back to a New Deal decision that a farmer who grew wheat solely for his own use was nevertheless engaging in "interstate commerce" and subject to New Deal quotas. If that case were reversed the conflict between federal and state marijuana laws would no longer exist.
What I believe Thomas is saying without actually spelling it out is that as long as Federal legislators skirt their obligation to spell out the actual law on this, it’s a mess at all levels of law.
Agreed. And I agree with him.
Absolutely agreed. That's another strong reason for the court to hide from this case. I think we really seriously need to take a very close look at exactly what should, and should not, be considered 'interstate commerce'. Ideally, that would be defined by congress, but they are utterly incapable of being nearly precise enough to be of any use.
The Constitution allows states to have various tax laws but in the case here Thomas is saying businesses can’t deduct normal business expenses when they file federal income taxes making them liable for excess tax payments to the IRS. The federal tax laws follow what is a legal business by federal law. Marijuana is not so you can’t apparently claim normal business deductions. The IRS is “studying “ this.
Thomas is consistent and right.
The DOJ and Congress are sloppy in enforcing and passing laws regarding marijuana, and the Court ducked the issue.
Thomas was one of three judges (all Republican appointees) voted in favor of medical marijuana. Demonrat judges approve of anything that increases government power.
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.