Someone else deal with this mess:
We read the Supreme Court’s decision on the medicinal use of marijuana with mixed emotions. We certainly wish that the Justice Department could be weaned from the gross misuse of the federal Controlled Substances Act that led to its campaign against the use of marijuana by terminally ill people in the 11 states where it is legal for doctors to prescribe it. But we take very seriously the court’s concern about protecting the Commerce Clause, the vital constitutional principle that has allowed the federal government to thwart evils like child labor and segregation.
The dissenters in the 6-to-3 decision, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, opened the door for conservatives who want to sharply reduce Congress’s use of its power to regulate and protect interstate commerce. These conservatives want to turn the clock back to before the New Deal, when workers were exploited, factories polluted at will and the elderly faced insecure retirements.
Because, you know, dissenting in this case meant that growing a plant in your own home for personal consumption is commerce, but that employing children to work in the coal mine you own, mining the ore, selling it to people, and transporting it from your property to the buyer would NOT BE commerce.
foolishmortal
Seriously. Sometimes I don’t know why they don’t just install 10th Amendment toilet paper in all government facilities and be done with it.
Stormy70
Flush some of the New Deal with it.
Mithrandir
Unfortunately, I see where it was coming from inasmuch as this wasn’t directly about “growing your own” but about a Dr. prescribing it. So I see where they “over-reached.” I’m not saying I agree with it, I don’t. They shouldn’t have even gotten involved with this case.
Rick
Stormy,
Careful calling out the New Deal as anything less than Holy Writ. Sojourner’s feelings will be hurt.
Cordially…
Mark V.
Does the NYT really doubt that states would come up with their own laws to govern these matters without the federal government’s interference?
Darrell
In general, leftists seem hostile to states rights, unless it suits their purposes such as in Schiavo matter. But in this case, my guess is that a lot of leftists and libertarians stand with the conservatives on the Supreme court.. conservatives who are taking a stand on curbing expanding Federal powers (CSA) against California’s state laws allowing for medical use of marijuana. Left leaning jurists Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens + conservative Kennedy (?) taking majority opinion against conservatives Clarence Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist
NY Times leftists, as expressed in this editorial, are so far out of touch as to be laughable. As we see, it’s not a matter of taking a stand against broadening powers of the Fed.. no, according to the NYT, it all boils down to eeevil conservatives looking to exploit factory workers and to starve the elderly.
That’s what I like about the left.. such a balanced and proportional outlook on things. Opposition to expanding federal powers (CSA) over California’s state rights = sweatshops and the elderly eating dog food.. such a reasonable and fair-minded summary of the ruling