Author Topic: Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor Agree (Read 771 times)

Sandman · « **on:** June 06, 2005, 12:49:28 PM »

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20050606/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_medical_marijuana_16

What the hell happened to states' rights? Oh yeah... Lincoln.

Curval · « **Reply #1 on:** June 06, 2005, 01:07:41 PM »

You can't allow patients to use marijuana for pain!!! That is a DRUG!

Nope...what they need is percocet, vallium, morphine, etc etc etc.

Hmmmmmmm.

Eagler · « **Reply #2 on:** June 06, 2005, 01:13:56 PM »

I even agree it is bs

but do you think it this ruling will change anything? I think those that do now will tomorrow as well as I would do if I were in their shoes.

on the other hand, I think the abuse of the medical loophole did nothing but hurt its cause ... how many toked up a med excuse?

Yeager · « **Reply #3 on:** June 06, 2005, 01:26:59 PM »

I much prefer codein over HTC...hey wait a minute?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #4 on:** June 06, 2005, 02:00:05 PM »

Quote

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal government authorities may prosecute sick people who use marijuana on doctors' orders.

Why would doctors order the federal government to prosecute sick people?

Curval · « **Reply #5 on:** June 06, 2005, 02:04:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why would doctors order the federal government to prosecute sick people?

Because they make lots of money peddling the "good" drugs as the large drug companies manufacture. This "alternative" non-addictive, non side effect producing upstart nonsense is just not CRICKET old chap!

lazs2 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 06, 2005, 02:08:24 PM »

pot allways made things hurt worse for me... I concentrated on em too much.

lazs

bustr · « **Reply #7 on:** June 06, 2005, 02:44:47 PM »

This is funny. On just about everything else the SCOTUS has legislated from the bench on Social Issues to the states rather than tell them to lobby congress for a law change. Now the SCOTUS is telling the states in the case of this substance that they have to follow federal law and lobby Congress to change it if they don't want to violate the law.

You think it's the camel nose under the the edge of the tent syndrome? They let this one slide and every other illegal substance gets challenged? Then someone has to actually do something about the war on drugs.

Chairboy · « **Reply #8 on:** June 06, 2005, 02:52:52 PM »

Looking forward to hearing conservatives on this board lambast 'activist judges'.

Toad · « **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2005, 03:15:17 PM »

Let me get this straight.....

you think each State should be allowed to decide for itself? That the Feds have no business sticking their nose in this?

Well then......... realize that O'Connor, Thomas and Rhenquist were the ONLY dissenters.

The "liberal" SC judges, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer all voted give the FEDS the power to decide, not the States.

Kennedy and Scalia, normally "states rights" types, sided with the "liberal judges" this time. Scalia wrote a separate opinion to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning.

Looks like your activist judges were the power behind this move to take away the powers of the State to decide "medical marijuana".

GreenCloud · « **Reply #10 on:** June 06, 2005, 03:34:40 PM »

who here needs there presciptions filled??

rpm · « **Reply #11 on:** June 06, 2005, 03:57:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Looks like your activist judges were the power behind this move to take away the powers of the State to decide "medical marijuana".

Toad you never cease to amuse me. How do they get the "activist" lable with this decision?

Toad · « **Reply #12 on:** June 06, 2005, 04:27:37 PM »

That comment is in respect to Chairboy's comment.

As for "activist" judge, the term as generally accepted means those in black robes, rather than legislators, that are making and repealing laws.

So, let's see. The States pass a law in their legislature, the Federal SC deems it unconstitutional because

"majority that the federal law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, was a valid exercise of federal power by the Congress "even as applied to the troubling facts of this case." "

So somewhere these judges found validity for the Feds to control marijuana prescribed by doctors despite the States themselves giving it the OK.

WRT States Rights, do you feel this is an "activist" ruling? Or "textualist"?

Sandman · « **Reply #13 on:** June 06, 2005, 04:30:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
As for "activist" judge, the term as generally accepted means those in black robes, rather than legislators, that are making and repealing laws.

I gotta ask. What laws have the Supreme Court made?

rpm · « **Reply #14 on:** June 06, 2005, 04:36:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
I gotta ask. What laws have the Supreme Court made?

(Pulls up a chair) This ought to be good.