Article here:
WASHINGTON - Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn’t likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say.[all emphasis mine]In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
Read the rest of the story.
Of course, this article won't inform you of how the individual Supreme Court Justices voted in this case. So I looked it up for you:
Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Scalia voted to condemn people suffering from incredibly painful, terminal diseases to a choice between unimaginable agony and possible imprisonment in a federal prison.
Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor opposed this decision.
In other words, all three of those who opposed this cruel ruling were "evil right-wing lunatic Republicans." And all four of the liberal judges on the Court supported the ruling.
Just some food for thought, the next time the Democrats whine about Bush's "dangerous and ideologically extreme" judicial selections...
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
That's an excellent point which I was thinking about making myself, but you beat me to it. Really the only conservative judge to vote for it was Scalia, and he's shown before that he's got some very peculiar views on the subject.
You should read the dissenting opinion. Some really sound reasoning from Thomas, who remains the clearest voice of reason on the court in many ways.
Dave
2 - gonzo marx
fascinating take on it all..
looking at it, and i'm certain i will be corrected if i am in error...it appears that the actual Case was brought to the Supremes on the Issue of whether State drug laws superceded the Federal laws...
the suprise here is that supposed "strict constructionnists" could possibly decide other than the way the Court did
not that i Agree with the Outcome, but the decision appears correct as per the Law as it stands, since it IS in the Context of which level of Law takes Precedence, NOT a referendum on marijuana itself...
the Law needs to be changed at the Federal level..just like the last Prohibition
nuff said?
Excelsior!
3 - RJ
Here's the opening part of Justice O'Connor's dissent:
We enforce the "outer limits" of Congress' Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 557 (1995); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937). One of federalism's chief virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
This case exemplifies the role of States as laboratories. The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 635 (1993); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 603, n. 30 (1977). Exercising those powers, California (by ballot initiative and then by legislative codification) has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering. Today the Court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation. In so doing, the Court announces a rule that gives Congress a perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the Commerce Clause--nestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemes--rather than with precision. That rule and the result it produces in this case are irreconcilable with our decisions in Lopez, supra, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000). Accordingly I dissent.
4 - RJ
Here is Justice Thomas:
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.
5 - RJ
While O'Connor's dissent is based upon Case Law, Thomas's dissent is based upon the actual US Constitution.
6 - RJ
But either way, the FEDERAL government should ONLY play a role in this issue if the "interstate" Commerce Clause is applicable.
And it's not.
So, whether you rely on hand-picked Case Law (like O'Connor), or the actual US Constitution (like Thomas), a reasonable ruling would be that individual states, whether by ballot initiative or through state legislation, should have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to decide for themselves whether or not medical marijuana is permitted or not.
To rule otherwise is to essentially disenfranchise all those voters who cast ballots in the initiative, and to usurp the rightful powers of the states' legislatures.
This isn't about "interstate commerce." This is about medicine for the sick and dying.
Keep that in mind, and then tell me about "radical right-wingers" on the federal bench...
7 - John Bambenek
Funny how federalism ends up being what people really want in the end...
Watch out, you may be a limited government supporter yet.
8 - gonzo marx
good points, RJ...
as i had prefaced, i had thought the Case itself was over the Controlled Substances bit..NOT under a Commerce issue
as a "commerce" issue, the Decision doesn't make sense (which your Quote from Thomas clearly shows)
damn you..now i'm gonna hafta go and read the whole thing...
dreck
Excelsior!
9 - Dave Nalle
The Thomas dissent, especially the bit you quoted, is so clear and so obvious that to not agree with it ought to disqualify the justices in the majority from even sitting on the court.
Dave
10 - Dan
Good post RJ.
What seems stupid to me is that one of the precedent cases the majority relied on was a 63 year old decision involving a farmer who exceeded his quota of wheat. The farmer argued that he used all his wheat on his farm and it never entered the market. The court said that since he didn't need to buy any, that it affected the market in a negative way.
What seems different though, is that marijuana doesn't have a legal market, so what would it matter what affect it had on an illegal market? No one is perceptibly effected, and if they were, who cares, they're illegal anyway!
I'm glad Justice Thomas simply and honestly cut through this tangled web of deceitful past precedental logic. I hope he lives a long long time.