What Were They Thinking?
The Supreme Court this week ruled that Federal anti-drug law trumps state laws, based on interstate commerce rules. This means that even if you live in a state which recognizes the proven medical benefits of marijuana for cancer patients on chemo-therapy, the feds can arrest you for growing a few pot plants in your back yard for your own use.
There are so many levels of stupidity here, I don't even know where to begin (and for those who insist that I'm a liberal, I'll point out that it was three CONSERVATIVE members of the court with whom I agree).
Let's see, where do I even begin.
First off, at what point does growing a few pot plants in your back yard become interestate commerce? Interstate commerce rules should kick in when someone grows a batch of pot in one state, and ships it across state lines to sell in another state. I can perhaps see where the interstate commerce rules might come into play with medical marijuana prescriptions, but that brings us to stupidity number two:
There are a lot of controlled substances which are perfectly legal for a doctor to prescribe. Did you know that it is legal under certain circumstances to prescribe cocaine? Morphine, oxycontin, the list goes on and on. Hard drugs, much more dangerous and damaging than marijuana could ever be, but they can be prescribed. Pot, which according to studies is less damaging than either alcohol or tobacco, that's the one we're going to freak out about and refuse to allow.
Third, can we recognize, please, that the country was set up to distribute power? The way our government was set up was intended to restrict the Federal government. Any power not EXPRESSLY given to the Federal Government in the Constitution is reserved for the States. This is part of why the amendment process of the Constitution requires approval of the states, not just the Congress. Congress can't usurp power, it has to be freely and willingly given up by the states (2/3 or 3/4 depending on which site you read. I couldn't remember off the top of my head, and a quick search turns up conflicting results).
There are so many places where the Federal government grabs power it has no right to. Often, it does end-runs around the Constitution. One of my favorite examples was the "National 55 MPH speed limit". It was unconstitutional for the Federal government to set a national speed limit, so what did they do? They said "If you don't follow our rules, we won't give you money to maintain the interstate highway system in your state". That's right, they took money which had been taken FROM the tax payers of each state, and then held it hostage against compliance with a rule they had no right to make.
Back to marijuana... I've never used it. I think it's important that you know that, so that you don't think I'm just some stoner, so baked on his weed that he can't see the harm. The fact is there is proven medical benefit of marijuana in certain circumstances, there are states which recognize this, and we have an increasingly paternal Federal government deciding that it knows what's good for the states and refuses to let them make their own choices.
Yeah, this is just what the founding fathers had in mind.
Copyright (c) June 11, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net
posted by Liam at 6/11/2005 10:02:00 AM
17 Comments:
This may frighten you but I am with you here. Unlike you, however, I did inhale.
Sunday, June 12, 2005 2:06:00 PM
This is why those judicial appointments matter.
Sunday, June 12, 2005 2:07:00 PM
I agree judicial appointments matter. But that's why I want moderate judges, not the extremists that Clinton nominated who were (rightly) blocked, and not the extremists Bush has nominated who SHOULD have been.
There are a lot of moderate jurists out there who should be acceptable to everyone. Just the mere fact that we've had the discussion on blocked nominations indicates that Bush is going for the more extreme.
I was reading somewhere (I'll try to find the information later) about the records of three of the nominees who were confirmed via the "nuclear option/filibuster" compromise. Truly scary stuff.
Liam.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 7:59:00 AM
I don't think your definition of moderate judges would support your interpretation of the law. Tell me who you think the moderates are on the Supreme Court.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:11:00 AM
It's certainly not anyone like Janice Rogers Brown, who has consistently opposed anti-discrimination laws, argued in favor of expanding the rights of companies to lie about their products without legal ramifications, and argued that a court should not prevent the use of racial epithets in the workplace.
Nor like William Pryor, who would severely limit Congress's ability to protect fundamental rights in this country and who urged the Supreme Court not to allow a discriminated-against disabled worker to sue under the ADA.
This sort of "judicial activism" is what we do not need in our Federal Courts.
By the way, I learned something new today. With all of the Republican complaints that the Filibuster had never been used before against a nominee (a falsehood), it is also true that no appellate court nominee who has been rejected in one Congress had ever previously been renominated to the same position. Another little tidbit to think about, when complaining how unfair it was that the Democrats wanted to continue blocking the same people they blocked once.
Liam.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:36:00 AM
I was asking about the Supremes.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:38:00 PM
I like my judges extremest. Not really, but I do like them to be passionate about the Constitution. I'd like judges to be outside of the political parties (which might be possible so long as they stay with lifetime appointments). I like judges to read and interpret the constitution from the Framers' point of view. That means that states can limit whatever they want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone's rights, that states can allow whatever they want so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone's rights.
That means that if the state grants the identity of 'human' to an unborn child, then says that the child has the same right to life, liberty and persuit, then it does. That means that if the state wants to declare pot, cocaine, or alcohol an accepted (or a banned) substance, it doesn't interfere with anyone's right, and it doesn't go against the constitution, then OK.
I think that it shouldn't matter who appoints a judge, their IMPARTIALNESS, their ability to accept the authority of the Framers, the ability to operate outside of the political arena should be what matters.
Now, as far as Dems blocking the administrations appointment... I say, "Quit it". Vote, up or down. Vote down and take a stand if you must, get President Bush to appoint someone else, but let us get the judges in there.
I might be wrong (I often am), but I think that it is supposed to be the current administration who appoints judges (the thought being that they were elected, and know somewhat the will of the people), and the Senate who approves or rejects those appointments (not who holds up the process cause they don't like it), based on that they too are elected officials and kinda know what their constituants want.
Then the judge ignores who appointed him, because he has ultimate job security. He judges based on the Constitution and on the Law, and his or her own conscience. He or she will can have their rulings overturned, or ignored, but that is the extent of the checks and balances on federal judges.
And my opinion on marijuna, legalize it, tax it, control it, study the heck out of it, give it to cancer patients if it helps. But, stop putting people in jail for possession of it, if you can grow it in your back yard, then how you came to possess it seems irrelevant.
(didn't feel like logging in)
Janet
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 4:46:00 PM
Janet,
I agree with you, mostly. (Not surprising, in as much as we share enough in common to have married each other).
But I agree with you. I don't disagree with much of what you say. However...
The judges that were being blocked were not the type you describe, based on their history. They were extremist in the worst way, and should have been blocked. And it's all well and good to start talking about how they all deserve and up or down vote, but the fact is that many of the judicial vacancies Bush is filling (or has filled) were left because the Republican Senate engaged in extreme obstructionism of Clinton nominees. It is in the nature of the "advise and consent" role of the Congress that nominees are supposed to actually be vetted, not merely rubber stamped, as appears to be the agenda of the current Congress. When either side is abdicates their responsibility in this regard, the other side has to pick up the slack. If they have to do this via filibuster, then that's what they have to do.
I do like judges to interpret the Constitution from the framer's point of view, but I do like them to interpret it, not operate on the "if it's not explicitly listed in there, it's not a right" mode that seems to be at the heart of the "Constitution Restoration" bill winding its way through both houses right now. For good or ill, there are things which aren't in the Constitution because the framers could have had no knowledge of them. Anything that relates to Internet commerce, for example, can reasonably be assumed to be an extension of the interstate commerce laws, even though the framers (for some odd reason) didn't see fit to mention the Internet in the document.
But I actually like the obstructionism, as long as it's done for the right reasons and not just to play the toddlers game of "la-la-la-la-i-can't-hear-you-la-la-la" to try to shut down government. Given the percentages of nominees we're talking about, that's clearly not the case here, this is simply the opposition party expressing their right (and I would say responsibility) to keep extremists off of the bench. It's especially important *BECAUSE* the appointments are for life. That "for life" aspect is an important part of the impartiality of judges, but as a result it's vitally important to determine, to the best of our ability, that the judge *IS* properly impartial before they take the job.
Oh, and I disagree with your "his or her own conscience". I do believe judges should only rule on the basis of laws. I give more leeway than some do to interpretation of the law as written to a situation not explicitly listed, but I don't think conscience has any place in the process, as odd as that sounds to say. By which I mean that I don't believe a judge should make a ruling because they feel it's right. I believe a judge's job is to interpret the laws as they apply to a given situation.
(Which is why, by the way, some unpopular Supreme Court rulings have in fact been correct. When the Supreme Court a few years ago dismissed a case challenging an anti-sodomy law in Georgia, they didn't rule on the Constitutionality or lack thereof (or even morality) of such laws. They correctly interpreted that the laws of the state were not overridden by Federal law in this case, and so they determined themselves to have no jurisdiction.)
Liam.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:10:00 PM
Janet is an idealist. But Liam, I would still like to know which Supreme Court justices you admire.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:06:00 AM
Janet is definately an idealist. But, I am a realist too. The facts... this administration was elected, the Senate was elected, the process has been in place for a bit over 200 years, the process fails from time to time, it has self correcting mechanisms (slow, but in place), changing the PROCESS to match the failings of the process are so potientially damaging to the framer's intent as to be reckless and dangerous, The elected administration and Senate are going to get the guys through, that is going to happen, the minority of the Senate doesn't have enough power to change that.
There is so much going on that a minority can change (in the Senate that is). So much where if they put thier attention, they could fix. So much that they could influence the public opinion if they opened sessions and let fresh air in.
The system of judges having lifetime tenure is a sound one. You may not like how they have behaved when they were open to the politics of getting where they were going, but most likely, they will abandon most of the politics when they have lifetime tenure. Very few judges have strayed so far away from the constitution as to be noted... they do have a difference in conscience (slavery, abortion, taxation, state power, etc. ) The framer's intent may be obvious, but if it isn't explicitly written about, they have to take jumps from time to time. They use thier conscience to do so.
Liam, you may not like this current administration's ways, and once you get a nasty taste in your mouth regarding them, it is difficult to see where the Administration begins and the people working for this government end. But, the judgements I disagree with tend to be from Liberal judges. Conservative judges are usually more comfortable leaving states rights with the states. They tend to err on the side of the constitution, rather than on the side of change for change sake.
Janet (I should learn how to log in, darn it)
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:57:00 AM
I need to get to work, I'll reply to Janet's comment later.
Ralph, the reason I ducked your question is, to be honest, I haven't paid all that much attention to the records of the individual Justices that currently sit on the Court. I'll discuss them when I disagree with a ruling they've come out with, or even agree with an unpopular one, but I don't tend to pay as much attention as I probably should to who was on which side of the issue. This is because, with lifetime appointment, it's not as beneficial a use of my time, since whether I like something one does or not, I'm not going to ever have the chance to vote one of them out of office.
But I will say that, conservative or liberal, I think they are mostly all fairly centrist. Some are definitely more conservative, some are definitely more liberal, but they're all within one standard deviation of center, which is where they should be. The crop over which the "Nuclear Option" was fought are significantly further from center.
I actually agree with Janet that between a moderate liberal judge and a moderate conservative judge, I'd prefer a moderate conservative judge in most cases. But between an extreme conservative judge and a moderate liberal judge, I'd prefer the moderate liberal judge. Extremism is frightening, and serves potentially to seriously alter the political landscape in this country.
Liam.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:52:00 AM
Liam,
Because you can't do anything about the Supremes once appointed, it is very important to become familiar with their past and present positions. It can help you better understand the evaluation of candidates before they are appointed and what characteristics best match the type of judge you would like to see. It's strategery.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:48:00 AM
You're probably right, I should spend some time researching this. However, I already know that I tend to agree most with judges slightly to the right of center. My problem is with judges WAY to the right of center.
For example, I've heard the argument (although at the moment I can't recall for the life of me which nominee it purportedly came from) that the Federal Government has no business imposing clean air legislation on the states and companies within the states, but I think the Federal government almost HAS to do it. The states have the same tendency to opt for short term gain over long term benefit that most humans do. The States may opt to compete with each other, lowering their own standards of air and water quality in order to lure companies (and thus, tax money and economic prosperity) into their territory, ignoring the fact that those pollutants will, down the road, be a detriment to the health of their citizens. Also ignoring the fact that air and water polution doesn't stay where it's generated, and so a poor choice by (for example) Vermont affects the air here in New Hamshire.
It's a fine line to walk, and there is no perfect solution. I think we have to weigh benefits of government against detriments, and for me, I find that I'd rather pay for the part of government that ensures that there is non-carcinogenic air for me and my children and their children to breathe over the "free market" society that would give me the opportunity to get rich at other's expense, but also allows others to get rich at the expense of MY health.
Liam.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:37:00 PM
Start by telling me which Supremes are just right of center.
Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:22:00 AM
I still haven't gotten the chance to read through the last few years of Supreme Court decisions to fairly answer this question.
I know that in general, Clarence Thomas is too far to the right for me. Recently, as the sole dissenting voice, he argued that there was nothing wrong in the Texas practice of stacking the jury deck with whites when the defendent is a minority. There is even an unofficial manual on how to prevent blacks and other minorities from serving on the jury, and Clarence Thomas is the only one of the nine who seems to feel this is perfectly legitimate.
I might agree with him if the complaint were simply that, due to the percentages, more whites ended up on juries than blacks. But when there is evidence that race is being used as a criteria for dismissing jury members (when one could argue that, by sharing a race, they better fit the description of "a jury of one's peers"), I think Thomas goes too far.
On the other hand, to my recollection I have generally agreed with O'Connor and Rehnquist.
But as I say, this is based on my faulty memory, and not on any recent research, and so I reserve the right to change or refine my opinion when/if I have the time to review their positions regarding recent cases.
(Oh by the way, my children, who live with me during the summer and with my ex-wife during the winter, will be joining Janet and me come tomorrow. Which means I'll probably have less time for blogging until August. Just be aware.)
Liam.
Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:38:00 AM
Liam,
You have your priorities right.
Thursday, June 16, 2005 6:27:00 PM
Thanks. I hope so. If I had to give up blogging or give up my children, there's no contest. This is a hobby, and one unlikely to have any long lasting effects on the world.
My children, on the other hand, are my most important responsibility in life, bar none. In order, I think my top three responsibilities are:
1) My children.
2) My step-children.
3) My wife.
To borrow (and paraphrase) from Lewis Black, blogging my political opinions ranks somewhere on page 6, just after making sure I consume enough garlic.
Liam.
Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:29:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home