Supreme Court strikes down medical marijuana

[LostMyMoney]

A strike against you potheads.

Also a strike against state powers...

Medical Marijuana loses 6-3 in US Supreme Court

[Skipbidder]

Politics geeks should try to guess which three Justices were dissenting in this case. I wasn't close.

[The Armchair]

I actually nailed two of the three. What I thought is in white. <font color="white"> I missed Souter, said Kennedy. </font>

[Skipbidder]

Stop reading this if you haven't yet played the "guess the dissenters" game and for some reason want to.

Neither of the Justices you listed were dissenting.
The Justice that wrote the Opinion of the Court was one that I pegged as a dissenter. This is one of the reasons why I said that I was way off.

You can read the opinions at http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050606raich.pdf

What follows gives away the show:

Stevens wrote for the Court. I was positive he was a dissenter. He actually sounds like a dissenter during parts of the Opinion.
Scalia was concurring in decision.
O'Connor wrote the main dissent (I had considered her as a possibility for dissent), to which Rehnquist and Thomas joined all but a little personal aside at the end. Thomas also wrote his own dissent.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
Politics geeks should try to guess which three Justices were dissenting in this case. I wasn't close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting the dissenters is easy, it's guessing who joined the majority that's darkly funny.

scrub

[wjmooner]

If you thought Stevens was going to be in the dissent you weren't paying attention to what this case was really about, the Commerce Clause.

But I got it wrong too on the guess the dissenters game. I never figured O'Connor for the dissent in this case. I figured 8-1 or 7-2 with Thomas and Rehnquist. Scalia really hates hippies, so he couldn't dissent [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

WJ

[Blarg]

Yet another sad day in a country that regularly embraces stupidity as if it were a virtue and cares more about laws than the public good.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
Supreme Court strikes down medical marijuana

[/ QUOTE ]

meh. i don't smoke it as a medicine anyway.

actually this case was far more about states rights than drugs or medicine.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
If you thought Stevens was going to be in the dissent you weren't paying attention to what this case was really about, the Commerce Clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'll certainly admit that I wasn't paying much attention. I'm about 10 years out from being a court junkie.
Obviously the guess-the-dissenters game only works for someone who wasn't paying attention to this particular case but has in the past.

[ QUOTE ]
But I got it wrong too on the guess the dissenters game. I never figured O'Connor for the dissent in this case. I figured 8-1 or 7-2 with Thomas and Rehnquist. Scalia really hates hippies, so he couldn't dissent [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

WJ

[/ QUOTE ]

So at 6-3, if you make it primarily a states' rights case, then you would think Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas.

[touchfaith]

As a card carrying P.O.T. smoker, I was very happy to see this decision! [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

All this did was re-affirm what we already knew, that the current federal law is not unconstitutional. We knew that. It's a law...laws are laws...bla bla bla...

BUT! What will happen is that the issue will be forced to Congress (eventually) where there is much (private) support. Not today, not tomorrow, but sometime soon, perhaps within a decade, a federal law will be presented and passed allowing for consumption of P.O.T. in states that have medical marijuana laws.

Today, nothing will change in most states, especially California. Oregon paniced. They are wimps. The Feds are not about to waste time making arrests...They simply needed to make the point that they can if they choose so that things do not get (too far) out of hand with the stores and growers...

They (the feds) have nothing to gain by making arrests. They have already proved their point and if they where to actually start making sweeping arrests, they would simply be forcing the hand of Congress, who would then be faced with overwhelming public presure.