Supreme Court overstepping their boundaries

[scaeagles]

This is one perfect example of "judicial activism". The issue isn't the marijuana to me, it is how and why the court ruled.

Basically, the court said that growing marijuana at home for medical purposes falls under interstate commerce and is therefore able to be regulated by the feds.

What?

Huh?

Shall we get a dictionary and define what interstate means? This has nothing to do with interstate commerce. Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Connor are the only ones who seem to understand this. I am quite surprised and disappointed at Scalia and Kennedy, though not surprised by the votes of the other justices.

If this falls under interstate commerce, everything can, and states rights be damned.

Another ruling which bothers me, but not nearly so much, is that foreign cruise ships that come into US Waters must abide by the ADA. I do not think it is up to the US to determine policies of foreign owned and based businesses. I beleive it is up to the passenger with a disability to determine if a foreign vessel can suit their needs. There are plenty of US cruise ships which fall under the ADA, as they should. I have no argument with the ADA about this, only this ruling applying our laws to foreign cruise ships.

[Prudence]

I have an announcement -- I agree with scaeagles on both recent rulings.

I'm actually SHOCKED at Scalia's vote on the marijuana case. Hello? States' rights? Just whose side is he on? I was particularly pleased by O'Connor's statements that if she were a California voter, she would have voted against the measure, but as a Supreme Court Justice, she believes states have the right to determine their public policies -- something like that. Which I like as an example of judges able to apply the law even when it conflicts with their personal opinions.

As for the cruise ships -- I agree with Scalia's comments (oh how this pains me) that the ruling opens the door to cruise ships being required to comply with laws of each country they visit -- which could be onorous and conflicting (my interpretation). If the problem is that too many cruise ships fly under foreign flags, there are other ways to remedy that situation. I was actually under the impression that post-9/11 there were more plans for US-based ships. Isn't NCL building another US-based ship?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hmm, I don't know. The majority opinion was...interesting. I don't know if I can disagree with it. Stevens basically said, "Well, my hands are tied. We can't start making exceptions to federal controlled substance laws as written. BUT, hey congress, perhaps you should start paying attention to what the voters are saying in these states and rewrite the controlled substance laws to allow it." Not sure I can argue with that.

[SacTown Chronic]

My issue is not with SCOTUS and their decision, but rather with the feds for bringing such a weak argument to the court. I maintain that if your only legal justification for butting in with California law is an old ruling regarding interstate commerce and a wheat farmer who witheld part of his crop from the market and used it to feed his family, then maybe you really don't have a legitimate reason to get involved with California's medical marijuana issue in the first place.


Props to the conservative justices who stood strong and ruled in favor of states' rights.

[Prudence]

You know, if Scrooge McSam and sleepyjeff come in here and agree, too, I'm going to have to start looking for horsemen. Four of them.

[scaeagles]

Well, Sac, if the argument by the feds was weak (and agreeably it is), then the court should have let them know that. I see no way in which interstate commerce comes into play here. It is an issue of the federal government overstepping their authority into the affairs of the state of CA. If the only way they can do that is through the interstate commerce clause, and they are successful with that argument, then states rights are no more.

[Tref]

What? Huh?


Amen, mah sister! I agree. Hmmph!

Besides, poor little pot never did nothing to nobody.

[Scrooge McSam]

*Scrooge steps in and waves to Prudence but says nothing. He has no desire to kick off the apocalypse... yet.*

[scaeagles]

C'mon Scrooge - give it up. How often do you have the opportunity to agree with me?

[Scrooge McSam]

How soon they forget.

I seem to recall it's been twice since your sphincter stretching. ;) (I trust you've had no more problems. I haven't seen much written about that lately)

To be clear about this though, I disagree with the ruling. The interstate commerce argument is ridiculous.

[SacTown Chronic]

I seem to recall it's been twice since your sphincter stretching. ;)
Didn't he also undergo a medical procedure? :evil:

[Prudence]

Thomas isn't my favorite justice, but I loved this bit from his dissenting opinion:

"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."

[wendybeth]

You know what really sucks? I can't even get all over Scaeagles for worrying about the loss of States rights when the conserves have trampled all over individual rights, because he has been fairly consistent in his criticism of these things as well.

Lol, Scrooge!

[scaeagles]

Didn't he also undergo a medical procedure? :evil:

That was freakin' hillarious. Laughed quite hard. Would send mojo, but can't due to mojo rules.

[scaeagles]

I seem to recall it's been twice since your sphincter stretching. ;) (I trust you've had no more problems. I haven't seen much written about that lately)

Actually, the LOWER ESOPHAGEAL SPHINCTER (capitalized for emphasis and clarification) was completely eliminated, not stretched. Things are great. Haven't felt this good in about 1.5 years. Can eat and drink with no problems whatsoever, but do have some other annoying - though completely managable - symptoms of my disease achalasia that I have to deal with.

Thanks for asking.

[Scrooge McSam]

Things are great. Haven't felt this good in about 1.5 years.

I'm so glad.

Can eat and drink with no problems whatsoever, but do have some other annoying - though completely managable - symptoms of my disease achalasia that I have to deal with.

You know I did wonder if the procedure might lead to some reflux problems down the road. Is that what's bothering you?

[scaeagles]

Actually, no reflux issues at all. It is standard practice when performing the surgery I required to also perform an anti-reflux procedure called a "toupet fundoplication", which involves some sort of manipulation of the junction of the esophagus and the stomach to prevent that. I guess around 80% of people needed it later, so they just automatically include it rather than having to do another surgery later on.

There are two problems I experience - I must take a drink of water after every bite or two of food to wash the food down, as the nerves are dead in the esophagus and it doesn't move food down. Took a while to adjust to that as habit, but the pain involved if I didn't made it something quick to catch on to. The other is a that I get some pretty severe spasms in my esophagus. Some are debilitating, others just an annoyance, but I'm used to them enough by now that they are only a problem if they happen at night and keep me awake.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

As much as I might want to jump on the sphincter joke bandwagon, I'll just keep my comments on topic. I pretty much agree with everything scaeagles has said as well. Not the first time, and I'm sure not the last.

My personal theory is that during his surgery, they pumped a little liberal blood in him. :)

[scaeagles]

As much as I might want to jump on the sphincter joke bandwagon, I'll just keep my comments on topic.

Thank you for respecting the dignity of all of my sphincters.


My personal theory is that during his surgery, they pumped a little liberal blood in him. :)

I would rather you make a sphincter joke.

[Alex]

Even though this court has done more than any other in the last 60 years to curtail the Congress's gross misuse of the interstate commerce clause, it hasn't actually done much to rationalize it.

So I'm not surprised that when the liberal tool (using the insterstate clause to limit states rights, notice that all the liberal justices are in on the majority opinion) aligns with a conservative social issue (zero tolerance for certain drugs) that a couple of the federalist justices could be swayed.

I'm surprised that it was Scalia and not O'Connor that flipped, but the ruling itself isn't a surprise.


And if you really want to cast blame for this decision, it all goes back to FDR and his big government policies. During the Depression the Department of Agriculture set limits on various crop sizes. One farmer grew more corn than the limit. The entire excess crop was for his own personal consumption and was never put on the market, local or interstate.

The Supreme Court upheld the fine against him on the grounds that the Congress had the authority to regulate interstate commerce and that this qualified not because it was directly interstate commerce but because it could have secondary effects on interstate commerce (since he grew his own corn, he would not buy corn at the supermarket, therefore affecting the interstate marketplace).

For the next 40 years the Congress had pretty much free reign to regulate whatever it wanted, because a secondary commerce affect could always be found.

This changed a bit in 1996 when the Court finally found an issue on which it was not willing to allow the interstate commerce claim. A 1990 federal gun law tried to make it a federal crime to possess firearms within 1,000 feet of a public school and used interstate commerce justifications to claim jurisdiction.

It is because of this case that court watchers thought this court would side with the states on medical marijuana, but I view it as more of an anomoly than a precedent.

[Prudence]

But wait, there's more!

Today, the illustrious court ruled that cities can seize homes for private development (eminent domain).

See article here. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1154&slug=Scotus%20Seizing%20Property)

So, if the city will get more tax revenue from a shopping mall than from your home, prepare to move! And of course you'll be entitled to "just compensation" -- which will bear no resemblance to the actual market value of your home. No need for a public use, no. Developer wants cheap land? Condemn some homes!
Developer gets a break, city gets increased revenue, and one more American dream gets snuffed out.

And I swear, if I side with J. Thomas one more time....

Seriously, some days I just want to cry. I care too much about this country and I've invested too much of myself in achieving that ellusive American dream to kowtow to the trampling of individual rights.

[Ghoulish Delight]

On the plus side, this means cities have motivation to keep property taxes low.

[scaeagles]

That ruling is beyind horrid. And scary. We have major problems with that around Phoenix - when the Bank One Ballpark was constructed with public funds (which pisses me off as well, but that's another story), there were people that did not want to sell their property, including one woman who was (can't remember her exact age) over 60 and had lived in this particular home since birth, so they had the property condemned.

So now, the government can sieze property if it is deemed in the best economic interests of the community, and private property rights be damned.

Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and (surprisingly to me) Kennedy should be ashamed. This is the very definition of fascism, being that big developers can team up with the government to take whatever the hell they want from the little guy. Good lord I hope no one ever wants my property for a mall.

[scaeagles]

Another "ruling" (actually, a combination of two) that simply astounds me is what they have to say about the 10 commandments being displayed on public property and in court houses. Rule one way or the other, but make a consistent ruling.

Apparently, on public property is OK, but in a courthouse, unless inside the Supreme Court chamber itself, is not OK. The court seems to expect to be able to discover the reason and motivation behind the display. If the display is there because it is a historical document, fine. If the display is there because of a representation of specific religious beliefs, then not fine. Is not a document simply a document and the reader reads into the words what they choose in terms of meaning? How can the court claim to know the intent? So the intent in the Supreme Court building is not religious, so they can keep theirs, but in Tennessee (or Texas - I keep confusing the two cases) it is for religious purposes, so it is not OK?

This court is making some rulings that are worrisome to me. Honestly, I could see arguments on both sides of the ten commandments, so a ruling either way would not have been shocking to me. But to rule as they did......I simply do not understand it.

[Prudence]

Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, and (surprisingly to me) Kennedy should be ashamed. This is the very definition of fascism, being that big developers can team up with the government to take whatever the hell they want from the little guy. Good lord I hope no one ever wants my property for a mall.


Did you read O'Connor's dissent? If she wasn't nearly as old as the head cheese, I'd swear she was gunning for his chair. Maybe she is anyhow...

[Prudence]

Another "ruling" (actually, a combination of two) that simply astounds me is what they have to say about the 10 commandments being displayed on public property and in court houses. Rule one way or the other, but make a consistent ruling.



I think that was Scalia's position. Can't really recall at the moment. I haven't read that decision because that was basically the topic for our law review write-on entry -- the one I read GOBS of case law for and formulated an opinion on and then had surgery and didn't feel like actually writing up. (Oh well. Moot court sounds like more fun anyhow.)

My impression, however, is that this will now help NOT AT ALL sort out an extremely confusing area of case law. I'm sure I didn't read every decision on the subject, but the theme of those I did read was no one (or not enough someone's to make a majority) has the balls to pick a position and say "screw it" to the other side.

Now, I actually wouldn't have complained if they'd said "yes" in some public displays and "no" in all courtrooms (including theirs.) That, to me, would have been more consistent. But excepting their own display seems, to use the technical term, bogus.

(Digression: the hypo we were to write on for the competition involved a town that was displaying, in city hall, as part of a larger display of artifacts from the town's original settlers, a copy of the 10 commandments that had belonged to the town's founder. But then again, I think it's relatively easy to draw a distinction between "historical display of relics of the lives and times of our collective ancestors" and "icon specific to certain religion(s) prominently displayed in the court of law where people are already on edge and the community should really be trying to at least pretend to be impartial.")

[Ghoulish Delight]

re: 10 Commandments.

I almost see where they were going. It's pretty tricky. Here are a couple extreme examples to illustrate the point.

Case 1: A courthouse erects a display of the 10 Commandments in the lobby with a plaque next to it reading, "The Word of God", complete with a speech at the unveiling about the importance of God and prayer.

Case 2: A well respected judge who sat on the bench at a courthouse for many many years dies, and as a tribute, some of his personal belongings, including an ornately framed copy of the 10 Commandments, are put on display at the courthouse.

I think most would agree that there is a clear distinction between these two cases. And I think most would agree that the first steps well over the line, while the second comes nowhere near it. So that's where things become complicated. There seem to clearly be appropriate displays and inappropriate displays. And, since the content of the 10 Commandments was influential to the founding of this country, it is difficult to just say, "nope, you can't have it." However, my feeling is, because not all cases (probably very few cases) are as clear-cut as my hypotheticals, and the only method for distinguishing them is a subjective analysis of motivation (aka, mindreading), an outright ban from public areas of government institutions should be the only solution. It may not be ideal, but if apparant motivation is the only test, then it's too easy to get around that just by putting on the right show.

[mousepod]

I'd like to see the Ten Commandments on display in Tennessee or Texas... in the original Hebrew.

[Prudence]

However, my feeling is, because not all cases (probably very few cases) are as clear-cut as my hypotheticals, and the only method for distinguishing them is a subjective analysis of motivation (aka, mindreading), an outright ban from public areas of government institutions should be the only solution. It may not be ideal, but if apparant motivation is the only test, then it's too easy to get around that just by putting on the right show.

I think that's a cop-out and the sort of thinking that has school zero-tolerance policies sending kids home for making "guns" out of their fingers on the playground.

Most cases ARE clear-cut and you'll never ever hear about them. You only hear about the ones that push the boundaries, which makes them seem more prolific than they are.

And to top it off, subjective tests are used throughout the legal system. Even the "objective" tests are subjective. ("Reasonable person" standard, anyone?)

[Ghoulish Delight]

You know, when you start to think about it, just how entwined in our nation's founding (from a governmental and judicial point of view) are the 10 Commandments anyway? Only 2 of them are laws. 4 are overtly religious (I am your God, no idols, keep the Sabbat, don't take the Lord's name in vain), 4 are good ideas but not criminal (no adultery, honor your parents, don't covet your neighbor's stuff, don't lie to get others in trouble). And the 2 that ARE laws are hardly the purvey of Christianity alone, prohibition against murder (or killing, if you go with the standard Christian translation) and theft predated the 10 Commandments. I think it's rather telling that the 80% of the content that is relatively unique to this particular set of moral codes* is NOT included in the founding documents of our nation.

But whatever. I'm neither horrified nor pleased by this ruling. Perhpas a balance can be struck, but they did fail to strike it. They need a more rigorous test of intent than they set up. Oh, wait, they didn't set up any test.

Honestly, the poop's not really going to hit the fan until someone tries put up a passage from the Quoran in a courtroom.

*edit: Rather, were realtively unique at the time they were created.

[scaeagles]

While this is vengeful and probably wrong to hope for, I would love to see this actually happen:

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

[Scrooge McSam]

HaHaHa I just saw that and was about to post on it.

[Prudence]

Yes! That is so delicious!

[SacTown Chronic]

Brilliant!!!

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Just popped in to post the same thing that was posted 2 days ago concerning Souter's home.

Don't know how I missed those posts?????

Anyway, this is my favorite part

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

[Scrooge McSam]

But wait, there's more!

And it just gets worse.

New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation. (http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000)

[scaeagles]

That's just sick. I'd say take it to court, but.....well, taking it to court over the land didn't do much, did it?

I am not an advocate for violence against government officials, but this would just about drive me to it.

[Prudence]

What the hell do they put in the water in that city? So, we're going to charge you rent, and at the current market rate, but we're going to take your land in exchange for the price it was 5 years ago. (And you just know that if land values had dropped significantly in 5 years, they'd be fighting to pay the contemporary value.)

And the sad thing is the city would probably win. That's how the city's laws were written. Unless the homeowners' attorney does have documentation that the city did agree to forgo rents.

Still, at some point you'd think they'd have some humanity! Just because you win your case doesn't mean you have to rub salt in the wounds. I could understand pursuing either rent or the 2000 property values. I might not like it, but to do otherwise could allow homeowners to derail projects by dragging out legislation until property values increase to a point where the porject is no longer feasible. But both? Egads! Take the high road already!

Of course, this could all have been prevented if the SC hadn't made such a bonehead ruling.

[Alex]

I would assume that there is existing legal precedent for what happens when an eminent domain confiscation happens.

The city confiscated the land five years ago and these people continued living there while contesting it. Based on other comments I've seen it appears that the owners were not paying property taxes over the last five years.

As wrong as I think the SCOTUS decision in Kelo was, this rent claim doesn't seem unreasonable. The city was deprived of income for five years while the tenants (wrongly, officially; rightly, in my opinion) contested the action. If I were the city and wanted to handle it as nicely as possible I'd offer them the option to either pay 5 years of property taxes or 5 years of market rent, whichever is cheaper.

The other issues is that the developer wants to pay compensation at 2000 rather than 2005 rates. And again I can see both sides (and you know that if the market had dropped, the homeowners would have wanted 2000 rather than 2005 rates). It seems to me that in cases of contested eminent domain, the compensation money should be put into escrow at the time of contestation and then the money goes to the appropriate recipient at the conclusion of the battle.

It really sucks, and it derives from what I think was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, but based on that decision I have to side with the city and developer on the two new issues.

[Scrooge McSam]

But, Alex, did the imminent domain proceedings go through, or were they stopped while they were being contested?

Prudence?

[Prudence]

But, Alex, did the imminent domain proceedings go through, or were they stopped while they were being contested?

Prudence?


Urg. Sorry -- classes start Monday so I'm back to only reading cases I *have* to read.

I'm not entirely sure that the developers/city would win on both property values and rent. They have a strong argument, but it's possible the homeowners could make a good policy argument that siding with the developers on both matters would unduly deter homeowners from fighting such proceedings. And given the reluctance with which eminent domain is supposed to be applied, the benefit might go with the homeowners.

Did they collect property taxes? I guess I didn't see one way or the other. Although I guess they wouldn't be able to collect both rent and property taxes.

I'm totally exhausted after spending the evening at the hospital with Ryan (they don't think it's appendicitis after all) so my brain has that not so fresh feeling. There's a well-reasoned argument in there somewhere but I can't find it at the moment.

[PanTheMan]

But We must admit, Marijuana is such an Evil gateway drug It causes people to lose concentration....

...

...

What.... Oh yeah... Sorry, a bird just flew by my window...

...

...

What were we talking about?....

...

...

...

Where did I put those damn twinkies??

...

What? politics or something?

..uh yeah.