Supreme Court overstepping their boundaries

scaeagles · 06-07-2005, 06:40 AM

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 · 06-07-2005, 07:53 AM

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 · 06-07-2005, 10:34 AM

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 · 06-07-2005, 12:04 PM

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 · 06-07-2005, 12:19 PM

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 · 06-07-2005, 12:40 PM

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 · 06-07-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What? Huh?

Amen, mah sister! I agree. Hmmph!

Besides, poor little pot never did nothing to nobody.

Scrooge McSam · 06-08-2005, 07:53 AM

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

scaeagles · 06-08-2005, 08:36 AM

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

Scrooge McSam · 06-08-2005, 11:17 AM

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.

06-07-2005, 06:40 AM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Supreme Court overstepping their boundaries 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. Last edited by scaeagles : 06-07-2005 at 06:47 AM.
	Submit to Quotes

06-07-2005, 07:53 AM	#2
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	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? __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

06-07-2005, 10:34 AM	#3
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	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. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

06-07-2005, 12:04 PM	#4
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	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. __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes

06-07-2005, 12:19 PM	#5
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	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. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

06-07-2005, 12:40 PM	#6
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

06-08-2005, 07:53 AM	#8
Scrooge McSam What? Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,635	Scrooge steps in and waves to Prudence but says nothing. He has no desire to kick off the apocalypse... yet.
	Submit to Quotes

06-08-2005, 08:36 AM	#9
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	C'mon Scrooge - give it up. How often do you have the opportunity to agree with me?
	Submit to Quotes

06-08-2005, 11:17 AM	#10
Scrooge McSam What? Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,635	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.
	Submit to Quotes

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode