SCOTUS rules against medical marijuana patients and states rights

[Moooooo]

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.

Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with oral arguments held in November.

The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws.

"If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because it's really the federal government that's in charge here," Toobin said.

http://www.cnn.com/LAW/

[Blue Rectangle]

Another rare Scalia/Thomas split.  I would have expected their positions to be reversed.

Oh, and I disagree with the majority.  The application of interstate commerce to this case is a big stretch.

[The Duke]

Once again, the alleged justices who assert privacy in abortion and sodomy cases won't do it in drug cases, proving that their point of view is intellectually bankrupt.

[A18]

Another rare Scalia/Thomas split.  I would have expected their positions to be reversed.

Oh, and I disagree with the majority.  The application of interstate commerce to this case is a big stretch.

I agree, except I would have expected both Thomas and Scalia to have voted in favor of the medical marijuana patients.

[Blue Rectangle]

Another rare Scalia/Thomas split.  I would have expected their positions to be reversed.

Oh, and I disagree with the majority.  The application of interstate commerce to this case is a big stretch.

I agree, except I would have expected both Thomas and Scalia to have voted in favor of the medical marijuana patients.

Me too, I'm disappointed in Scalia.  Thomas is generally more authoritarian than Scalia, so I would have thought that if one voted with the majority, it would have been Thomas.

So growing pot in your own backyard for personal use is interstate commerce?  How is that "interstate"?  How is that "commerce"?

[they don't love you like i love you]

how much more whining about the liberal court will we hear?

I found Rehnquist most suprising, since he's also the most authoritarian.

[Nation]

A horrible decision.

[Democratic Hawk]

Since I favour the use of drugs like marijuana in pain relief (and that's all), I don't agree with this decision

Dave

[A18]

Since I favour the use of drugs like marijuana in pain relief (and that's all), I don't agree with this decision

Dave

yawn. Liking the outcome or not should not change your opinion of whether the outcome was correct or not.

[KEmperor]

Yeah, I read that.  Horrible day for medical freedom.

[David S]

Freedom loses again. I'm surprised that O'Conner got it right and equally surprised that Scalia got it wrong.

When Harry Browne was running for president he was asked if he would have a litmus test for judges. He said "I just want people who can read the simple language of the constitution."  Wouldn't that be nice?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Freedom loses again. I'm surprised that O'Conner got it right and equally surprised that Scalia got it wrong.

you're suprised Scalia voted authoritarian?

[Gabu]

So, how about them liberal activist judges?

[A18]

    Justice Thomas, dissenting.

    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.

I

     Respondents’ local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce … among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents’ conduct, however, is not “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” Congress’ restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents’ conduct.

A

    As I explained at length in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines. Id., at 586—589 (concurring opinion). The Clause’s text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term “ ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.” Id., at 585 (Thomas, J., concurring). Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. Id., at 586—587 (Thomas, J., concurring). Throughout founding-era dictionaries, Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates, the term “commerce” is consistently used to mean trade or exchange–not all economic or gainful activity that has some attenuated connection to trade or exchange. Ibid. (Thomas, J., concurring); Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101, 112—125 (2001). The term “commerce” commonly meant trade or exchange (and shipping for these purposes) not simply to those involved in the drafting and ratification processes, but also to the general public. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 Ark. L. Rev. 847, 857—862 (2003).

    Even the majority does not argue that respondents’ conduct is itself “Commerce among the several States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California–it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

[Storebought]

So, how about them liberal activist judges?

This ruling is exceedingly activist and liberal. The federal judiciary has just overridden state legislation which had no bearing on the laws of other states.

Not that I care for marijuana use: I'd just as well see all of those 'patients' die than tolerate them taking one puff of that filth.

[Gabu]

This ruling is exceedingly activist

Yes.

and liberal.

Uh, what?  What liberal doesn't want medical marijuana to be legal?

[Storebought]

This ruling is exceedingly activist

Yes.

and liberal.

Uh, what?  What liberal doesn't want medical marijuana to be legal?

This ruling has precious little to do with (disgusting and immoral) marijuana use; it's sole purpose is to lay the groundwork for judicially-mandated federally-imposed gay marriage. I'm counting down the hours to it...

[A18]

Uh, what?  What liberal doesn't want medical marijuana to be legal?

What liberal doesn't want the federal government to control everything even remotely related to commerce?

[David S]

Freedom loses again. I'm surprised that O'Conner got it right and equally surprised that Scalia got it wrong.

you're suprised Scalia voted authoritarian?

Surprised that he voted for federal rule in an area where states rights clearly apply.

[The Duke]

This ruling is exceedingly activist

Yes.

and liberal.

Uh, what?  What liberal doesn't want medical marijuana to be legal?

That's more of a legislative thing.  A legislature would answer the question of whether it should be legal, and the Congress has decided that it should not be legal.

The Court should decide whether the laws passed by that legislature are constiutional or not.  Here, they have upheld those laws based on a broad interpretation of the commerce clause, which is one clause enabling an expansive Federal government.  This is why the ruling is liberal, even if it doesn't produce a liberal outcome.  Its the reasoning that matters, not the holding.

[Blue Rectangle]

This ruling is exceedingly activist

Yes.

I disagree.  The Court did not impose a ban on medical marijuana, Congress did.  This is primarily a states' rights issue, not an issue of judicial activism.  It is not activist to rule in favor or against states' rights.

[A18]

This ruling is exceedingly activist

Yes.

I disagree.  The Court did not impose a ban on medical marijuana, Congress did.  This is primarily a states' rights issue, not an issue of judicial activism.  It is not activist to rule in favor or against states' rights.

The point is they're just using this issue to bring back an expansive meaning of the commerce clause, to the point where the fed can regulate anything.

[Alcon]

This ruling has precious little to do with (disgusting and immoral) marijuana use; it's sole purpose is to lay the groundwork for judicially-mandated federally-imposed gay marriage. I'm counting down the hours to it...

Uhm...?

I assume this has something to do with the SCOTUS's ability to define marriage within states...but do you really think Scalia is going to be supporting gay marriage?

[Gabu]

That's more of a legislative thing.  A legislature would answer the question of whether it should be legal, and the Congress has decided that it should not be legal.

The Court should decide whether the laws passed by that legislature are constiutional or not.  Here, they have upheld those laws based on a broad interpretation of the commerce clause, which is one clause enabling an expansive Federal government.  This is why the ruling is liberal, even if it doesn't produce a liberal outcome.  Its the reasoning that matters, not the holding.

So... they upheld the ban on medical marijuana, and that was a liberal ruling.

When they removed the ban on abortion, that apparently was also a liberal ruling, even though it went against the expansion of government instead of towards it.

Here's a question: what court decision was not the fault of liberals?  It seems to be the case that if a decision is p, then it is liberal, and if it is not p, then it is also liberal, which does not entirely leave a lot of decisions in the "not liberal" pile.

[A18]

With this ruling, the court dismantles United States v. Lopez, a quick review of which would have struck down the criminalizing of private homemade automatic firearms.

It was mentioned, with regard to United States v. Stewart, that the court might be waiting until the Ashcroft v. Raich decision, a case similarly relating to the commerce clause, before hearing arguments for this case. Now that they have dismantled the court's one small step towards a sensible construction of the Constitution, it appears that such an action so fundamentally detached from interstate commerce will now be placed firmly in the hands of the fed, for their regulating pleasure.

In short, the court has decided that the federal government may regulate anything, at any time, any where, any place in the United States, just so long as they at least pretend they are doing it for commercial purposes. So long to our freedoms.