But in this case you're OK with the SCOTUS making new law because it runs parallel with your ideology.
Were you OK with O'Connor's replacing diversity for "equal protection"?
I'm not OK with either one and I'm not OK with the feds imposing pot laws on states either.
If California wants to de-criminalise weed, it's up to them not DC.
You see, even when results run counter to my social conservatism, I recognise that either we have a Constitution or we don't. At this point, we don't.
I personally would like to see the federal government keep their f*ck*ng noses out of the states' business.
Or "assisted suicide" laws, for that matter.
(Many of the same people who hate that SCOTUS struck down this law would have no problem with SCOTUS doing the same to assisted suicide laws).
No I'm not. The funny part is that I agree with the fundamentalists on this case to the extent that the FedGov should NOT have this power over the states.
It is enjoyable, however, to see many of the same people who defend the Federal Drug War come to these threads and start spouting off about the Constitution. It exposes their hypcrisy.
Again, I'm not refering to you. You seem like you know what you're talking about Constitutionally.