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.
Yes that's what he is saying
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)
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
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.
Thomas was one of three judges (all Republican appointees) voted in favor of medical marijuana. Demonrat judges approve of anything that increases government power.
Tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars later, where do we stand on the "war on drugs?"
The way I’m reading this is that if the Federal government is not willing to enforce the marijuana laws that they wrote, and are currently denying federal law enforcement from enforcing, then they need to rescind all “roadblocks” placed in front of businesses/people selling/using marijuana. Right now it is a Hodge Podge of enforcement and non-enforcement which leaves the average citizen totally unable to comply with the law or to even know what the law is.
No he is saying that the confusion between State and Federal winking at laws is causing citizens engaged in legal State commerce to be Violating Fed laws that can either be winked at or ignored or used against that citizen. Let’s say that citizen pisses someone in Fed government off.