Thank goodness for the Justice Department.
Now we can send cancer patients to jail for smoking pot under Doctor’s orders.
Glad that threat has been cleared up.
And if anything you do anywhere can be covered under the auspices of interstate commerce, well- anything can be regulated. Wonder how all the ‘strict constructionist’ right-wingers are going to explain Scalia’s vote…
*** Update ***
For those of you who can’t figure out my snide remarks regarding Scalia, go here, here, here, oh, hell. Just go to the Agitator and read every post.
If you still don’t get it, read this:
Well, so much for states
Stormy70
Why are you pissed at Scalia, even without his vote it would have been 5-4 majority against. Why pick him out? I thought his reasoning made sense, even if I disagree with the ruling. Get Congress to change the law at the federal level, and all these problems become moot. Why do these patients have to grow their own plants, can’t they get it from their doctor?
katinula
I’m assuming the picking on Scalia has more to do with the ‘strict constuctionists’ calling for him to be the next Chief Justice than singleing out his vote instead of all the others that voted in the majority. It just goes to show, they are ‘activist’ judges when going against the right wingers and reasoned jurists when it comes to maintaining the status quo–even if its doesn’t logically follow their arguement of states rights.
Stormy70…why so concerned about growing of your own plants? I’m assuming people do this to shield their doctors from prosecution John Ashcroft style.
Marcus Wellby
The Pharmaceutical Juggernaut no-likey medical marijuana. End. Of. Story.
russ
Well I don’t know why the whining over this judgement either, especially the picking on Scalia…
If the voters want cancer victims to have access to medicinal reefer then the voters should vote in the politicos that are partial to this idea…
We have the government we deserve…
KC
I haven’t read the actual decision yet and welcome any schooling that comes my way, but it sounds like the court had a problem with sick people growing their own pot from the news article I read. This makes me wonder how the interstate commerce clause applies in this case. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that people are taking advantage of the law, but still, why couldn’t California etc. be responsible for enforcing its own marijuanna regulations? Then again, it sounds like the decision upheld the power of Congress to make laws respecting illegal drugs. I can’t see why Congress shouldn’t have that power especially since there’s plenty of interstate trafficking of marijuanna (I know this firsthand, having had friends in Eureka who grew and sold pot). From what I’ve read, the decision seems to leave it up to us voters to elect representatives to loosen the laws on our behalf.
John Cole
KC- It all goes back to FDR…
Richard Bottoms
So why is it when you vote for a conservtive theocratic leaning party you are surprised at their policies and actions?
I am sure you will be equally stunned when a Bush appointed SCOTUS starts slashing away at homosexual’s rights or women’s access to birth control.
Tim F
I know John has more or less answered this but it deserves to be reemphasized – what exactly has his party done that he can be proud of?
The Republicans have bloated the government faster than any three Democratic administrations. They run up debt faster than a junior on spring break. They’ve quite obviously capitulated entirely to the James Dobson cultural fringe. For all their military fetishism they seem pretty craptacular at prosecuting actual wars, not to mention their enthusiasm for cutting veterans’ benefits.
If Republicans don’t stand for what the onld-fashioned conservatives used to think they stood for, then what do they stand for? Judging by DeLay and Frist you’d think it’s nothing but a self-enriching criminal gang running on gaming the system and poisonous demagoguery.
If that continues to be true, then what reason do traditional Republicans have to vote Republican?
Ben
russ,
It isn’t the “government we deserve”… Congress is essentially a lifetime appointment these days. 99% of incumbents win re-election due to gerrymandering, the ability to buy votes via pork, use their elected office to fund elections (free postal), etc. It is almost impossible for anyone to even run against an incumbent so don’t tell me they can be voted out. Only a person with great personal wealth can run for congress and they are already corrupt… the system is corrupt. Term limits!
Jaybird
Hey, Russ. Should we be allowed to vote for state referrendums allowing marijuana?
Would that be okay with you?
Kimmitt
If that continues to be true, then what reason do traditional Republicans have to vote Republican?
Lower tax bills, the appearance of toughness with respect to Islamic terror operations, and distaste for liberal cultural values.
Ben
Kimmit,
Your joking right? Lower taxes? You mean the relatively lower taxes coupled with the massive deficits… you also apparently haven’t paid the AMT yet. You will, keep waiting. Liberal cultural values? Well, as a life long repub, give me the lib cultural values over the theocrat values anytime. You probably don’t understand that unless you are a fag like me and have to listen to Dobson et al talk about what a piece of shit you are all the time. At least the lib values are a choice and not writing discrimination into the constitution.
The Republican party has NOTHING to offer moderate, non JF’s.
Nikki
I read somewhere that marijuana was originally made illegal to benefit the cotton growers as hemp is a stronger fiber than cotton. Is this true?
Shinobi
It might be, hemp is stronger. I believe it can also be used as a substitute for petroleum in a lot of plastics. It is extremely durable and has many uses.
“Ford recognized the utility of the hemp plant. He constructed a car of resin stiffened hemp fiber, and even ran the car on ethanol made from hemp. Ford knew that hemp could produce vast economic resources if widely cultivated. ”
http://www.artistictreasure.com/learnmorecleanair.html
But remember kids. Drugs are Bad! Why? Because they are.
Shinobi
It might be, hemp is stronger. I believe it can also be used as a substitute for petroleum in a lot of plastics. It is extremely durable and has many uses.
“Ford recognized the utility of the hemp plant. He constructed a car of resin stiffened hemp fiber, and even ran the car on ethanol made from hemp. Ford knew that hemp could produce vast economic resources if widely cultivated. ”
http://www.artistictreasure.com/learnmorecleanair.html
But remember kids. Drugs are Bad! Why? Because they are.
shinobi
sorry for spam, the computer lied to me
Katinula
Russ: California did vote on this issue and allowed medical marijuana. That is why everyone is decrying the lack of ‘federalism’ in this decision. The SCOTUS sided with the federal government over states rights. Cali voters decides, SCOTUS denied. Thats leaving out the arguement is based on interstate commerce and none of the pot in this case ever crossed state lines as it was all homegrown. An all around nutty decision. Not to mention that Bush got his ‘victory’ from the ‘liberal’ judges and the dissenting judges were all ‘conservative’.
Stormy70
I think pot will eventually be legalized, since younger demographics are trending that way. I like how you guys bitch about the righties, considering all the liberal judges voted in the majority opinion.
The elections in 1994 changed our government, and despite incumbency, elections will change our government again in the future.
russ
Ben claims: “Congress is essentially a lifetime appointment these days. 99% of incumbents win re-election due to gerrymandering“…
Ben! Ben! Ben! Look at how many people vote on the local and state level as compared to how many could vote…
Then look at the even more important national elections…
No sir Ben, we do have the government we deserve…
Anything else is just whining for an excuse…
russ
Ben claims: “Congress is essentially a lifetime appointment these days. 99% of incumbents win re-election due to gerrymandering“…
Ben! Ben! Ben! Look at how many people vote on the local and state level as compared to how many could vote…
Then look at the even more important national elections…
No sir Ben, we do have the government we deserve…
Anything else is just whining for an excuse…
russ
Ben claims: “Congress is essentially a lifetime appointment these days. 99% of incumbents win re-election due to gerrymandering“…
Ben! Ben! Ben! Look at how many people vote on the local and state level as compared to how many could vote…
Then look at the even more important national elections…
No sir Ben, we do have the government we deserve…
Anything else is just whining for an excuse…
russ
Ben claims: “Congress is essentially a lifetime appointment these days. 99% of incumbents win re-election due to gerrymandering“…
Ben! Ben! Ben! Look at how many people vote on the local and state level as compared to how many could vote…
Then look at the even more important national elections…
No sir Ben, we do have the government we deserve…
Anything else is just whining for an excuse…
rob
Ben claims: “Congress is essentially a lifetime appointment these days. 99% of incumbents win re-election due to gerrymandering“…
Ben! Ben! Ben! Look at how many people vote on the local and state level as compared to how many could vote…
Then look at the even more important national elections…
No sir Ben, we do have the government we deserve…
Anything else is just whining for an excuse…
rob
Ben claims: “Congress is essentially a lifetime appointment these days. 99% of incumbents win re-election due to gerrymandering“…
Ben! Ben! Ben! Look at how many people vote on the local and state level as compared to how many could vote…
Then look at the even more important national elections…
No sir Ben, we do have the government we deserve…
Anything else is just whining for an excuse…
tim
People pick on Scalia because he plays strict constructionist on TV, but comes up with self-contradictory reasons to vote against state’s rights he doesn’t like.
Justice Thomas nailed the problem, in the first paragraph of his dissent:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana
that has never been bought or sold, that has never
crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable
effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress
can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can
regulate virtually anything — and the Federal Government
is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
neil
To answer Stormy’s question from the top of the thread: No, these patients may not get the pot from their doctors, according to the 2001 Supreme Court ruling on the subject, which ruled that distributing medical marijuana to patients was unconstitutional. After that ruling, Angel Raich sued for the right to grow her own, and the rest is history.
Stormy70
Neil – thanks for clearing that up. I didn’t know that much about it. I agree with Thomas’ dissent, though. I think people will continue to grow their own, and defy the law. Can’t catch them all.
KC
I guess the big question for me is now that this decision is made, will there be a push to loosen the restrictions on the use of medical marijuanna at the national level? After all, the decision clearly leaves it up to us to see that marijuanna laws are overturned. Oddly, I see elements of both national parties trying to make medical marijuanna use legal, but other elements being squarely against it. As I see it, on the Republican side, the religious right will celebrate this decision and work to keep marijuanna a controlled substance. On the Democratic side, many Dems in Congress may oppose loosening restrictions on marijuanna out of fear of being beat on the head with the soft-on-crime label. The Libertarian wing of the Republican party and liberals in the Democratic party will push to have medical marijuanna legalized. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Tim F
the appearance of toughness
That’s what makes kimmit proud of his party? If my chosen leader sawggered his tough-looking ass off a cliff, call me crazy but I’d probably notice the walking off a cliff part before I noticed the swagger. We can look as tough as we want but as long as Bushie keeps giving al Qaeda precisely what they want I doubt they’ll feel terribly intimidated.
Massive deficits demand huge tax hikes to fix. Ask Reagan. Folks who think this congress is making them richer likely wouldn’t have a clue what’s wrong with the idea of eating the seed corn.
John Cole
Umm. Kimmitt is a Democrat and was just offering up a suggestion.
neil
Stormy, I believe I can say without hyperbole that the same standard applies to political dissidence in Cuba.
M. Scott Eiland
Ah yes, another case for the usual suspects on the left to ignore while they’re spewing their “Thomas is a brain-dead clone of Scalia” riffs.
Rick
Some folks here need a few good hits off a doob, that’s for sure.
Like, cordially…
Nikki
Ah yes, another case for the usual suspects on the left to ignore while they’re spewing their “Thomas is a brain-dead clone of Scalia” riffs
How is that possible when Thomas went against type and gave a dissenting vote where as Scalia’s vote was the opposite? Please pay closer attention.
Non-Fat Latte Liberal
I was also outraged when Iread this this morning. Outraged and puzzled. How could this be in anyway linked to the commerce clause. So I looked up the opinion, waded through legal jargon and lo! Solid reasoning.
The decision, while a litttle unsettling has a precedent. Now I’m a dem, which means I’m a member of the minority party which means I’m pro states rights (until we’re back in power) but e opinion makes compeling reading. I blogged about it and summarized it, but theupshot is that it’s economically relevent to interstate commerce.
As is often the case, the side with the catchier slogan is wrong. Like “Make love not war”, “Court Rules against pot for sick people” sounds good but misses the point.
Nash
We rook mahvelous
Because, after all, it’s more important to look tough than to be tough.
Right?
[/satire]
[You may need to ask someone who is old enough to be safe from privatizing Social Security.]
Stormy70
I went to Scotus Blog and read a defense on Scalia that was interesting.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/
BJ Chavez
Scalia is being picked on because at least the liberal justices are sticking to their guns.
Scalia seems to be against states rights when it’s conveinient to his particular world view(marijuana, enviromentalism, gay marriage, election laws), and for states rights when it’s equally convinient(gun control, rape laws, gay discrimination).
That is the very definition of a judicial activist, more so than the liberals on the court have done.
neil
Ah yes, another case for the usual suspects on the left to ignore while they’re spewing their “Thomas is a brain-dead clone of Scalia” riffs.
Ah yes, another case for the usual suspects on the right to ignore while they’re spinning their “Liberals are stupid” straw men.
ppgaz
Churn abounds here. What’s this about?
IMO, it’s about the coming end, with whimper, of the asinine “war on drugs.”
This is a convenient symbiosis between the WAR-ON-DRUG crowd, which is about one notch above the equally useless Sex Police, and the drug industry.
What right-thinking drug magnate wants people getting relief from something you can grow in your backyard?
People who are desperately sick and think they need a weed to feel better are not going to submit to this nonsense. They are going to do what they need to do, and I say, Dog Bless ‘Em. I support them 100%.
M. Scott Eiland
Ah yes, another case for the usual suspects on the left to ignore while they’re spewing their “Thomas is a brain-dead clone of Scalia” riffs
How is that possible when Thomas went against type and gave a dissenting vote where as Scalia’s vote was the opposite? Please pay closer attention.
Yes, that’s why they’ll *ignore* it–it’s an obvious indication that their conception of Thomas is flawed, so they’ll pretend it doesn’t exist.
Sojourner
Ah, Scalia. His intellectual honesty and consistency is, once again, underwhelming.
Why did he vote this way? Because he wants to be chief justice and he needs the far right to support his nomination.
A true model of judicial ethics once again. Makes one proud of our SCOTUS.
M. Scott Eiland
Ah, Scalia. His intellectual honesty and consistency is, once again, underwhelming.
Why did he vote this way? Because he wants to be chief justice and he needs the far right to support his nomination.
Interesting–and why did Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer vote that way? The WRWC is growing by leaps and bounds, evidently.
Tim F
Umm. Kimmitt is a Democrat and was just offering up a suggestion.
Got it. Thank you for correcting me.
Do you agree with him?
BJ Chavez
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer voted that way because they’ve always been consistantly against state’s rights, taking the view that the Commerce Clause trumps most states’s rights. They’ve never varied in that. In fact, in this decision, I believe that Stevens says that he disagrees with the federal policy in this case, but his previous commerce clause jurisprudence limits his options. They didn’t vote that way to appease one political wing or the other.
Scalia on the other hand, has just proven himself a hypocrite, contradicting himself in the Lopez case in order to bow down to the right-wing orthodoxy.
John Cole
Interesting–and why did Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer vote that way?
Because they are avowed statists. They are idiots, IMHO, but they at least are consistent.
Stormy70
I am sorry, but here in Texas, every local “right-wing extremist!” talk show radio host thinks this decision sucks. They know it is not about drugs, but about the federal government getting too much power over our lives. The callers don’t like it either. I disagree that this is a bowdown to the far right, seeing as how people on the right do not like it one bit.
John Cole
I don’t know what Republicans stand for anymore.
Well- we apparently like being in the majority.
Sojourner
Scott:
At one time, your portrait of how some on the left thought of Thomas was correct. But I think it’s less the case now.
Although Biden was useless in the Anita Hill hearings, it does appear that he was correct in expressing his concerns during the nomination hearing that Thomas wants to roll back the provisions of the New Deal. Which puts him in the same camp as Janice Rogers Brown.
FWIW
Libertine
I doubt DEA agents will be arresting people who use marijuana for medical reasons.
Now I want to get some Scalia bashing in…judicially he is a hypocritical bastard, but he probably just got Bush’s eye for the next Chief of the SCOTUS. Who ever said the Court was above politics. From what I heard O’Connor’s dissent is a dousy…you go girl!!!
Birkel
Sojourner,
Do you think it’s appropriate for the federal government to nationalize the computer industry?
It’s a serious question.
Sojourner
Except in the case of extreme, national emergency (can’t think of an example though), no.
Al Maviva
Okay, I’ll drink the Repukelikkkan kool aid and defend Scalia.
He wrote a separate concurrence citing to the necessary and proper clause, taking for granted that drugs sold, are “in commerce.” Much as I wish every one of you sonsabitches could legally get stoned to the bejeezus, this isn’t inconsistent with his prior Commerce Clause jurisprudence, which permits regulation of things “in commerce” and things with an aggregate effect on commerce, per Wickard v. Filburn. Where Scalia has more problems, is where the federal government intrudes into purely local matters – regulating school zones, and attempting to usurp state level criminal law issues with no commerce nexus. If the sale of marijuana is not a thing in commerce (and if the underground pot economy doesn’t have an aggregate effect on commerce) then I wonder what business the federal government could possibly have in getting involved in medical research, medical device and drug regulation, and for that matter, class action suits (save those on diversity jurisdiction). To rule that the sale of drugs is not in commerce… well, that would be a pretty credulous ruling, don’t you think? And the actual scope of the holding is limited to the sale of drugs, Stevens’ expansive dicta claiming more is just that, dicta. In spite of Will Saletan’s statement that the actual holding is “fuck you, cancer patients,” the holding in the case is limited to the basic question posed, which was whether states could take a chunk of the stream of commerce, regulate it for themselves, and in doing so somehow put it under sole regulatory authority of the state.
That’s a hard argument for a legal originalist / textualist to dismiss – if the Commerce Clause means something, it means that the federal government can regulate big business that crosses state lines, and considering that pot growing and sales are one of California’s top cash crops, right behind porn stars, I think he has a pretty good argument.
I think Justice Thomas’ separate dissent is the best interpretation of the original meaning of the Commerce Clause. However, if you take him at his literal word, you have to accept the implications of his position. The implications are that almost all federal regulation of any type, save some interstate stock and tariff regulation, is completely illegitimate. I know you’re getting to hate us Repukes lately, John, but I’m wondering how much more you’d hate us for returning the U.S. to a pre-1910 sweatshop state. Sure, the several states would probably pick up the regulatory slack. At least some of the would. But I’d like you to think about the consequences of what you’re saying first. Which regulations are you willing to part with – the environmental ones? The food safety regs? How ’bout the child safety regs? How ’bout the aviation regs? That’s basically what getting rid of Wickard would mean. And while you may trust Ken Lay and the Rivas family to regulate themselves, I sure as shit don’t.
Sure, I hope for a slightly more radical view from Scalia, something closer to Thomas, but it’s hard to make a completely principled argument in Commerce Clause litigation in which the baby gets neatly cleaved in two.
And BTW, you just keep on bashing Scalia as a statist monster, Libertine. Each bash lowers the credibility of your argument a notch. Scalia single handedly turned around the Court’s opinion on existing mandatory sentencing schemes, which are the primary engine behind the mass jailing of the pot heads you so want to coddle. Traditional notions of civil liberties – which include property, fourth and sixth Amendment rights – have no better advocate on the court than Scalia. While Thomas’ opinion is pure, Scalia’s opinion is generally good and he has from time to time won the rest of the Court over to it. It’s nice to be a purist and lose every time while maintaining the admiration of internet hotheads (and hopheads, apparently); but I’d rather deal with a “moderate” purist who gets a big win on occasion. Try studying law some time, it might help you improve the quality of your arguments.
Sojourner
Al:
Thanks for your interesting answer.
Here’s where I struggle… The law allowed people to grow it themselves for their own use and only with a doctor’s “prescription.” So how does this become commerce?
Non-Fat Latte Liberal
Sojourner,
Growing your own pot doesn not consitute commerece it
“exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce” The opinion does not claim that it constitutes commerce.
It seems to me alot of people are missing the point. Lat’s say Gephart becomes president and wants to introduce quotas on widgets. Now If I make widgets in my backyard, even if it’s for my ownuse, that’s one less person buying widgets and it therefore has an effect on the price of widgets. The price of widgets, I’m sure we all agree, has a huge effect on interstate commerce of widgets. Gephart may be a jerk for doing it, but it’s within his rights.
I was on the fence with this before but after mulling it over a bit I’m more conviced it’s right. I tell you guys the opinion is compelling.
bago
To Al Mavalvia:
Commerce, as defined by webster, the father of american english and a man who could defeat the devil in court.
Main Entry: 1com
M. Simon
Non-Fat,
If this was 1850 the decision would never have gone the way it did.
The meaning of the commerce clause was changed in about 1870 to conform to “progressive” politics.
Drug use may be self medication for PTSD. So we are in effect having a war on sick people.
Addiction or Self Medication?
Sojourner
Except there is NO legal interstate commerce in marijuana. So how can self use of self grown grass affect it?
This makes no sense.
Kimmitt
The meaning of the commerce clause was changed in about 1870 to conform to “progressive” politics.
Hm, what might have happened between 1850 and 1870 that might have changed the then-contemporary view of how the US ought to be structured?
Birkel
Sojourner,
Then you oppose Wickard and its progeny. Notice that much of the Civil Rights Act was based on an understanding of “Interstate Commerce” that flowed directly from the Wickard decision.
(Wickard basically said the government could control national wheat production down to the tenth of an acre, for those who haven’t slogged through Con Law.)
Anyway, that leaves all of us in a bind–including the SCOTUS. They can’t overrule Wickard and throw into question the CRA’s, hate crimes legislation, a lot of the federal regulatory scheme, etc. And nobody with half a brain would want that to happen either. So there we are…
And M. Simon, I question your timeline. The Sherman Antitrust laws were passed in 1890 and not enforced in any meaningful way until 1904. But the real weight of the laws didn’t become apparent ’til 1911 and the Standard Oil case. But even that doesn’t change the fact that the real revolution in Con Law took place in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s in areas such as free speech, the Commerce Clause and many others.