Reason Writers Around Town

Writing in the L.A. Times, Nick Gillespie wonders what sort of human paraquat would give the federal government a license to bogart sick people's dope.

Comments

[Rick Gaber]

FWIW: All 3 dissenting justices were appointed by Republican Presidents, while both Clinton-appointed ones concurred with the majority opinion.

[Adam]

Right on for the most part, but...

In 2002, however, the Drug Enforcement Administration began to confiscate the drug from users because marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

They started well before 2002. Todd McCormick was busted by the DEA in 1997 and Peter McWilliams in 1998.

In a concurring dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argues flatly that "if Congress can regulate [medical marijuana] under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything ? and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

Don't know who put in the brackets, but it completely distorts the argument Thomas made.

[mediageek]

Such issues, said the court, were the states' responsibility and should remain beyond Congress' ever-expanding grasp. Partly because of such decisions, court watchers started to talk about a revival of federalism and states' rights as the legacy of Chief Justice William Rehnquist (Rehnquist joined Thomas and O'Connor in the Gonzales vs. Raich dissent.)

Perfect example: this SCOTUS ruling is already making waves in the gun culture with regard to US vs. Stewart. The belief was that if the Supremes rule on Raich being interstate commerce then it is a foregone conclusion that they will rule similarly on Stewart. (The Stewart case, at least on it's face bears a lot of resemblance to Raich. He was arrested for building homemade machineguns for his own use on his property.)

*shrugs shoulders*

[PintofStout]

This aggression will not stand...man.

[Mark Bahner]

"Writing in the L.A. Times, Nick Gillespie wonders what sort of human paraquat would give the federal government a license to bogart sick people's dope."

Nick Gillespie's editorial contains two main points: one is on the morality of the decision, the other is on the legal merits of the decision.

The morality of the decision is irrelevant. Judges should judge on The Law, NOT what is "moral."

The legal merits of the decision are the only important thing. As Nick Gillespie correctly points out, there was absolutely no legal merit in the decision. This was a slam dunk Tenth Amendment case; the ruling should have been 9-0 in favor of Raich.

[SR]

By the way, I looked up the definition of "paraquat" and got the following:

A colorless compound or a related yellow compound used as a herbicide.

Is that actually what you were going for, Julian?