Drug Czar Won't Respond To Nevada Campaign Law Complaint

Associated Press ^ | Jan. 28, 2003

[robertpaulsen]

"do Roscoe's cites still hold water for you?"

What "holds water" for me is the unanimity of numerous courts across the country and over time. Two wackos making one ruling from one court (which has been overturned 27 out of 29 times by the USSC) does not.

[MrLeRoy]

Rubbish.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Cert. denied, 510 U.S. 822 (1993).

Why hear a meritless case?

The USSC does not have to hear every case brought to it. They do not have to give reasons for denying cert. Sometimes they do, most of the times they don't. Denying cert has nothing to do with the particular merits of a case. As told to you ad nauseum.

Of course, the reason the USSC hasn't granted cert to a case directly challenging the CSA couldn't be because Rehnquist, as CJ, was one of, if not the, chief architects of a multitude of 4th Amendment cases expanding police powers, giving them more and more "tools" to fight the W.o.D. Yeah, the Chief Justice of the USSC is really going to grant cert to a case which could destroy his one major contribution to American jurisprudence. A smart man like Rehnquist is really willing to put a ball like that into play . . .

[Hemingway's Ghost]

What "holds water" for me is the unanimity of numerous courts across the country and over time. Two wackos making one ruling from one court (which has been overturned 27 out of 29 times by the USSC) does not.

In other words, you don't have any particular standards or care about consistency, you just pick and choose according to what pleases you.

[Roscoe]

The USSC does not have to hear every case brought to it.

And they have apparently not bothered to hear any of the "drugs laws is unconstitutional" appeals.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

And they have apparently not bothered to hear any of the "drugs laws is unconstitutional" appeals.

Agreed, but only in your world does that mean they're telling everyone that drug laws are constitutional.

[Roscoe]

In other words, you don't have any particular standards or care about consistency

Talk about irony.

It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.

Proyect v. United States

[Hemingway's Ghost]

In other words, you don't have any particular standards or care about consistency

Consistency in terms of political ideology, i.e., in championing Big Government involvement in some issues, detesting it in others, and all the while claiming to be a conservative against "Big Government." Horizontal, vice vertical, thinking. Nobody's saying liberalism's illegal.

More reading comprehension problems for you, Roscoe.

[Roscoe]

Horizontal, vice vertical, thinking. Nobody's saying liberalism's illegal.

Take a deep breath.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Take a deep breath.

Imagine the "jack booted glee" you'd enjoy if I breathed in some marijuana smoke, too?

[Roscoe]

breathed in some marijuana smoke

Is it a cure for irrationality now?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Is it a cure for irrationality now?

Much better than beer, wine, or whiskey.

[Gianni]

Recreational drug user = harcore criminal?

My philosophy may indeed be creepy, but does not involve strapping you to a chair and beating you with a rubber hose "WOD style."