Raich


Will Justice Thomas and Justice O'Conner be the new heros for the left?
One of the reasons why I haven't commented more on the judicial nominations is because I knew this case was going to throw a monkey wrench in the works.

For all the talk about how the law and the Constitution had to change with the times, the justices supporting medical marijuana use are originalists. That has to make some of our modern liberal friends very embarassed.

Anyway, these are quotes from the dissents that really stood out in my mind.

"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."
–Justice Clarence Thomas

"Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some states, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case."
–Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Now before some claims that I am defending Mr. Bush, I am not. It was the Bush Administration that brought the case in the first place, and it was the Bush Administration that appealed it. Nor am I advocating drug use. My point is that the Federal government is too big and has assumed way too much power.

Are you upset that Mr. Bush didn't sign the Kyoto Accord? Are you upset that Mr. Clinton didn't push for a larger military? The problem is deeper than that. The blame doesn't belong exclusively to either Republican's or Democrats.

The problem is that government has bamboozled people into believing that government agencies can do a better job of looking out for their interests then they themselves can. Do you really think that some bureaucrat with a second mortgage and a lousy marriage is going to be interested in your needs? Have you seen those lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles or the unemployment office? Do those people look like they care one bit about you. except how difficult you might make things for them? If everything works out, do you think that they want you wasting their time while you tell them about it? If it doesn't work out, do you think they will save you?

People deserve the chance to make their own decisions and they should accept responsibility for their actions. Period.

Anything else, KYFHO.

I expected this decision. I think it is necessary, and it is one of several recent decisions that will be overturned by future courts. I am surprised that it was 6-3 and not 5-4.

Radley Balko makes some great points on this topic here and here. And several other spots as well, one might get the feeling that Mr. Balko is a bit put off by the decision.

David Bernstein really goes to town on it.

These are two that caught my eye, but there are several hundred others.

Can you say "popular revolution?"

— NeoWayland

Posted: Mon - June 6, 2005 at 05:52 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved