SCOTUS rules against medical marijuana patients and states rights

[Cashcow]

What an awful ruling.

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.

Your brilliance shines bright as the stars.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Holy sh**t, that's a weird break down of the court.
They must have all been stoned when they did this ruling.
Well, even though I don't like the 3 dissenters, I still disagree with this ruling.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

How is it liberal when liberals disagree with the ruling?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

No, kidding, he's the least surprising. What's suprising is Rehnquist voting no, and Ginsburg voting yes.

[Storebought]

What an awful ruling.

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.

Your brilliance shines bright as the stars.

It's good to see that you can recognize sarcasm...

And about the liberal nature of this ruling: my reasons are bascially the same as John Ford's

[The Duke]

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.

Its too different clauses of the Constitution.  The marijuana case had to with Article I Section 8, or the Commerce Clause, and liberals have an expansive view of this clause.  The abortion cases had to with the 14th Amendment, and indirectly had to with the 4th Amendment.  Its not as simple as big or small government, powerful or weak government.

A liberal jurist would say that the govenrment, under Article I Section 8, that the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.  This would include regulating commerce where the transaction itself is not an interstate transaction (Like this case) or regulating things that aren't commerce at all on the grounds that they have an impact on interstate commerce, and to properly regulate actual interstate commerce, the powers of the government mustextend to these other cases.  So, a liberal jurist (Like Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens, the four most liberal judges on the court all of whom ruled to strike down the CA law) would say that allowing the state of CA to do what they're doing has an indirect effect on interstate commerce, and therefore falls under the Federal purview.

A conservative jurist would say that interstate commerce only means actual commerce that actually crosses state lines.  As Justice Thomas said, if the government can regulate medical marijuana then their regulatory scope is hardly limited at all.  It really has little to do with his view of medical marijuana and has much more to do with his view of the Commerce Clause.

On abortion, the both the liberal and the conservative jurist would say that the 14th Amendment protects three things: Life, liberty, and property.  They also agree on what property means, more or less, and on what life means, more or less.  The key difference is over liberty.

A conservative jurist would say liberty is the various rights and priviledges guaranteed by the explicit provisions of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.  For example, the First Amendment protects free speech, so free speech is a liberty that the 14th Amendment protects.

Side note- This is very important, because unless the 14th Amendment guarantees you something, the state governments can restrict it.  Before the 14th was ratified in 1865, the states could regulate all sorts of things that the Bill of Rights protects.  The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." and it was actually understood to mean that only Congressional action was restricted by the First Amendment.  So Alabama could ban the word "flower", and it wasn't a violation of free speech.

Back to topic- So a conservative believes that only those rights explicitly outlined by the Constitution are protected.  A liberal jurist again takes a more expansive view.  They would say that things like privacy are protected by the Constitution, even though not mentioned therin.  The 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  What rights are these that are not outlined, but still retained by the poeple?  There are many approaches.  International norms (If most countries don't have the death penalty, maybe we shouldn't either.), history and tradition (If the people have always been understood to have a certain right, they had ought to always retain that right.), and penumbras (If the specific rights of the citizens collectively seem to imply a right, then the people have that right.  This is the key one in Roe).  In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that things like the 4th Amendment protection against search and seizure implied a right of privacy from government intrusion.  They used an expansive view of the Constitution to justify their ruling.

It is not as simple as one side always favoring big government and one side always favoring small government.  Liberals believe in a big government on economics and a small government on social issues, conservatives want small on economics and big on social issues.  But that's not even the best way to look at it, because your still focused on the holding (or the outcome) of the case, when you should be focused on the reasoning behind the holding.  The best way to view judicial issues is that liberals take an expansive view of the Constitution, both the in powers granted to the government and in the rights retained by the people, while conservatives take a narrow view of the Constitution, whether considering the powers of the government or the rights retained by the people.  Again, don't focus so much on whether abortion and marijuana are legal when deciding if a ruling is conservative or liberal.  Focus on the reasoning.

A good parrallel to this case is Wickard v. Filburn, a pro-New Deal ruling that had to do with the Constitutionality of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.  The legality of agricultural production restrictions doesn't seem to have much to do with medical marijuana on the surface, but the logic behind both of these (liberal) rulings is essentially the same: That an indirect or substituted effect on interstate commerce justifies Federal regulation of something that does not seem to directly relate to interstate commerce.

I am also not "blaming" liberals for this ruling.  I agree with the ruling wholeheartedly, and commend the court for sticking to its 200 years of precedent on commerce issues, so I'm not trying to blame those dirty hippies for taking people's weed away, I'm commending them for taking people's weed away.

[The Duke]

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.

How is it liberal when liberals disagree with the ruling?

Liberals like Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg?

The two most conservative justices (Thomas and Rehnquist) dissent and the four most liberal justices lead the majority with the most liberal writing the majority opinion.  How can liberals say this was not a liberal ruling?

I agree with the ruling, but it is a very liberal ruling.

[A18]

If we are to believe anything so remotely related to commerce, is commerce, then the Congress can ban cutting our hair because we'd have to go to hair cuttery if we didn't do it at home. Let's take a look at the other enumerated powers, shall we?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Certainly taxes affect interstate commerce, do they not?

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

The necessary and proper clause would already allow this under this "anything remotely related to commerce goes" rule, as it may be necessary for regulating interstate commerce.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Obviously naturalization and bankruptcy affect commerce, so again, we have a power reduced to mere redundancy.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Affects commerce. Not necessary.

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Affects commerce. Not necessary.

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Communication is part of commerce. Not necessary.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

In other words, to promote commercial activity.

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

These don't seem to have anything to do with commerce at all, but then, neither does growing marijuana for your own private use, so I suppose we might as well let the Congress get away with these as well.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

War substantially affects interstate commerce.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

This should then be ruled as a restriction, not a power, since armies are necessary for ensuring peace and protecting interstate commerce.

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Again, peace promotes interstate commerce.

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Since we have a government that regulates interstate commerce plus everything remotely attached to it, and a necessary and proper clause, this might as well not be here.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Insurrections and invasions hurt interstate commerce. I guess Congress already had this power.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

More a restriction than a power, since this clearly affects interstate commerce.

The court has just dismantled the Constitution. Under this ridiculous, obnoxious interpretation of the document, Congress can tell individual corporations what to sell, since it affects interstate commerce. And sadly, it has a lot more to do with interstate commerce than this weed.

[The Duke]

Your representation of the COurt's ruling is incorrect.  The Court has held itself to a strict view of the subsituted effects doctrine, they have not in fact allowed the regulation of anything that has any impact on interstate commerce, as you claim they did.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

How is it liberal when liberals disagree with the ruling?

Liberals like Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsberg?

The two most conservative justices (Thomas and Rehnquist) dissent and the four most liberal justices lead the majority with the most liberal writing the majority opinion.  How can liberals say this was not a liberal ruling?

I agree with the ruling, but it is a very liberal ruling.

Center-left does not mean liberal. Yes, I'm confused to why 7 of the judges voted the way they did, but Kennedy's and Scalia's votes make sense.

Not that there is really any logic to SCOTUS rulings. There have been two SCOTUS cases involving state election laws in recent years. One case had to do with whether the law could be made more favorable to third parties (like New York) in some state. The other case was Bush vs. Gore. Both are seen as state's rights issues, and none of the 9 justices voted the same way (pro state's rights / anti state's rights) on those 2 cases.

[Blue Rectangle]

In Bush v. Gore, the majority voted to uphold state law and overturn the opinion of the state supreme court.  The issue was not states' rights, but state legislature and executive versus state judiciary.

[Emsworth]

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.

Indeed: there was no commerce, let alone interstate commerce.

[A18]

On abortion, the both the liberal and the conservative jurist would say that the 14th Amendment protects three things: Life, liberty, and property.  They also agree on what property means, more or less, and on what life means, more or less.  The key difference is over liberty.

A conservative jurist would say liberty is the various rights and priviledges guaranteed by the explicit provisions of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.  For example, the First Amendment protects free speech, so free speech is a liberty that the 14th Amendment protects.

Side note- This is very important, because unless the 14th Amendment guarantees you something, the state governments can restrict it.  Before the 14th was ratified in 1865, the states could regulate all sorts of things that the Bill of Rights protects.  The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." and it was actually understood to mean that only Congressional action was restricted by the First Amendment.  So Alabama could ban the word "flower", and it wasn't a violation of free speech.

Back to topic- So a conservative believes that only those rights explicitly outlined by the Constitution are protected.

I don't agree with this. Life, liberty, and property are all 'protected,' yet notice that it only takes one thing to take them away: the fitting process prescribed by law. It's derived from Magna Carta, and serves as a protection against executive authority. The executive branch must judge you by the law, rather than the will of the executive.

The 14th amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights, except for due process. The privileges and immunities argument is easily cast aside, as it would have already incorporated due process, which is mentioned later. It simply means that you can not be deprived of your rights as a citizen (by a state), and in a later section of the amendment, the Congress is given the power to enforce this. It creates no new rights of citizenship, and to this day, the incorporation theory is based on either substantive due process (not the privileges and immunities clause) or some historical tale from somewhere in Hugo Black's mind.

Lastly, it should be duly noted that the 14th amendment was rejected (by enough states to defeat it). I don't know if the Congress repassed it after that, or simply declared the south out of the union, but the latter is clearly illegal even if they did the former. I am not arguing that the 14th amendment should be thrown out, but only because it would set a terrible precedent. However, I don't think we should consider it 'ratified,' just 'enacted.'

[The Duke]

The substantive component to the due process clause is widely accepted by legal scholars and the Supreme Court.

[Rob]

Absolute bullsh**t. They're trampling on states' rights (including my own). This will make the Bible Belters rejoice.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In Bush v. Gore, the majority voted to uphold state law and overturn the opinion of the state supreme court.  The issue was not states' rights, but state legislature and executive versus state judiciary.

Forcing Florida to end it's recount against what its Supreme Court had ruled was not a position of state's rights. It was Bush and not Gore who took the lawsuits to federal court.

[A18]

The substantive component to the due process clause is widely accepted by legal scholars and the Supreme Court.

That's not an argument.

[Sam Spade]

In Bush v. Gore, the majority voted to uphold state law and overturn the opinion of the state supreme court.  The issue was not states' rights, but state legislature and executive versus state judiciary.

Forcing Florida to end it's recount against what its Supreme Court had ruled was not a position of state's rights. It was Bush and not Gore who took the lawsuits to federal court.

The Supreme Court in Florida had ordered the 4 counties in particular (I forget which 4, they're the ones that Gore had requested had hand recounts only) to do hand recounts past what state law had determined to be appropriate time to do such a thing.

The Florida Supreme Court's ruling therefore invoked two principles it never had the right to.  The first was to overrule state law on the subject of vote counts, certifification, etc.  The second was to say that four counties had the right to do different counts than all other counts in the state.

The second was the easier one to go to federal court to overrule and that's precisely what happened, on the basis of the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

As to this present case, I agree wholeheartedly with what John Ford said above and second my disapproval of the way the Supreme Court interpreted the Interstate commerce clause in this case.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

OK, an honest question:
If medical marijuana is so effective, why don't it's advocates try to get FDA approval?  Why shouldn't it have to go through the same rigorous testing process as any other prescription drug?  Without this sort of legitimacy, they "medical marijuana" movement seems more like an attempt at backdoor general legalization than a bona fide medical treatment.

It is ridiculous to me that the legality of a prescription drug should be decided by statewide referendum.  Should the safety and effectiveness of the next Viagra clone or the next AIDS treatment be decided by majority vote?  Maybe it should be decided by doctors and scientists who have actual medical knowledge of how the drug works.

[The Duke]

The Supreme Court in Florida had ordered the 4 counties in particular (I forget which 4, they're the ones that Gore had requested had hand recounts only) to do hand recounts past what state law had determined to be appropriate time to do such a thing.

Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward, and Valucia.

As to this present case, I agree wholeheartedly with what John Ford said above and second my disapproval of the way the Supreme Court interpreted the Interstate commerce clause in this case.

But I agreed with the Court's decision.

The substantive component to the due process clause is widely accepted by legal scholars and the Supreme Court.

That's not an argument.

You said that the 14th doesn't apply to states in any substantive way, it only applies with procedural issues.  I disagree, and point out the ever growing consensus that there is a substantive component.

[Ebowed]

A ridiculous ruling.  Again the Supreme Court pulls random activist sh**t out of its ass, just like it did with Roe v Wade.

[The Duke]

A ridiculous ruling.  Again the Supreme Court pulls random activist sh**t out of its ass, just like it did with Roe v Wade.

There's actually a LOT of precedent behind this, its not something the Court "pulled out of its ass."

[Ebowed]

There's actually a LOT of precedent behind this, its not something the Court "pulled out of its ass."

Oh?  I'm not sure how I see this case applies to interstate commerce; as Blue Rectangle stated, that's quite a stretch.

[??????????]

This proves again that the federal government has no caring for the 10th Amendment. But this has just been a continuing snowballing effect for almost 200 years now. Disregard what the states may want.

[Sam Spade]

As to this present case, I agree wholeheartedly with what John Ford said above and second my disapproval of the way the Supreme Court interpreted the Interstate commerce clause in this case.

But I agreed with the Court's decision.

Hmmm...  I think I worded that wrong. 

What I meant to say was that I agreed with the reasoning of your argument, specifically the definition of how liberals and conservatives use different parts of the Constitution to push an ideological tilt. 

Also, I agree with the rationale that you made as to the reason why the Court came to the decision it did.  I have not had the chance to read the opinions in detail, but it sounds like the most logical conclusion.

I didn't mean to say that I agreed with your opinion on the ruling here, as is sort of obvious.  Nor do I agree with the interpretation of the interstate commerce clause in this case.