T1B

DrDetroit wrote:

Miss Demeanor wrote:

mvscal wrote: On further review, the case was brought by MM advocates not the Federal government.

Hmm, I guess what confused me was

"The ruling was a victory for the Bush administration, which appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court in California ruled for the two women.

But whoever brought the case to the Supreme Court has won a landmark victory. I can hardly wait for the arrests to begin.

I think it's definitely better to use some opiate or synthetic opiate to control pain and/or relieve nausea.

I still don't get the "landmark" nature of this decision...care to explain, MissD?

You mean other than the Supreme Court abusing the Commerce Clause like a rented mule?

B:

You mean other than the Supreme Court abusing the Commerce Clause like a rented mule?

You mean "continuing to permit the Congress to abuse the Commerce Clause?"

Uh, until 1995 the Court failed to invalidate a single piece of federal legislation on commerce clause grounds for over 50 years.

This decision represents a return to the Court's position on the commerce clause that it held from the 1930s until the mid 1990s.

What is "landmark" about a return to a long-held position?

DrDetroit wrote:B:

You mean other than the Supreme Court abusing the Commerce Clause like a rented mule?

You mean "continuing to permit the Congress to abuse the Commerce Clause?"

Take your pick.

Uh, until 1995 the Court failed to invalidate a single piece of federal legislation on commerce clause grounds for over 50 years.

This decision represents a return to the Court's position on the commerce clause that it held from the 1930s until the mid 1990s.

What is "landmark" about a return to a long-held position?

What I find disturbing about this is that there is no demonstrated interstate commerce that needs to be regulated. If they were getting the herb from another state, I could have understood the logic, even though I still know prohibition to be a failure.

What I find disturbing about this is that there is no demonstrated interstate commerce that needs to be regulated. If they were getting the herb from another state, I could have understood the logic, even though I still know prohibition to be a failure.

Never heard of Wickard, eh?

Court upheld the federal regulation of wheat production, even where the wheat was grown and consumed on a single farm. Farmer Filburn’s activity was neither “interstate” nor “commercial,” but was nonetheless subject to federal control. Allowing every individual farmer to grow their own wheat in excess of federal supply controls could disrupt federal efforts to regulate wheat prices, the Court explained. While no individual farmer could have a significant affect on wheat prices, the cumulative effect of all such farmers could have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, and so it is subject to the commerce clause.

So what is the "landmark" nature of this ruling?? MissD?

DrDetroit wrote:
I still don't get the "landmark" nature of this decision...care to explain, MissD?

Still can't quite get a grasp on that pesky concept of "satire" can you?

It's not a landmark decision, it's stupid. Why the Bush Administration felt it necessary to pursue this to the Supreme Court goes beyond me.

Good link. RacK Thomas. Especially --

as had no demonstrable
effect on the national market for marijuana.

Gist of the matter, right there. How horrible this must have been for the SCOTUS -- those appointed by the GOP know they were put there to promote the bible-thumping agenda, rather than uphold the Constitution. Some of them are bound by a sense of right and wrong, while others are bound to political back-scratching.

It doesn't take a law degree to see the abuse here. By the logic behind the majority decision, it would also be illegal for me to grow wheat in my backyard for personal consumption. Whether I grow wheat, marijuana, opium poppies, or anything else, it has ZERO æffect on interstate commerce -- so why would that clause be invoked to stop me? There's obviously some ulterior motive at work, and it's not upholding the Constitution. Maybe time to toss some SC Justices to the curb for blatant disregard for the law. If we can't count on the SCOTUS to uphold the law according to the Constitution, what good are they? I believe the Founding Fathers flagged this very thing as a red flag of impending tyranny, which the entire point of the Constitution and the Three Branches was to prevent tyranny, or special interest from exerting control.

The Second American Revolution is coming, my brothers and sisters. And it can't come soon enough. Hopefully, it's not a violent one.

Miss Demeanor wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:
I still don't get the "landmark" nature of this decision...care to explain, MissD?

Still can't quite get a grasp on that pesky concept of "satire" can you?

It's not a landmark decision, it's stupid. Why the Bush Administration felt it necessary to pursue this to the Supreme Court goes beyond me.

Bwaahahahahahaaaa!!!

It's satire, eh?? Bullshit.

The Bush administration pursued because Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That means he's obligated to enforce the law. Congress passed the law (the Controlled Substances Act) and Bush was obligated to enforce it.

It took you four pages to finally tell us it was satire?? LMAO!! Whatever.

Dinsdale wrote:Good link. RacK Thomas. Especially --

as had no demonstrable
effect on the national market for marijuana.

Gist of the matter, right there. How horrible this must have been for the SCOTUS -- those appointed by the GOP know they were put there to promote the bible-thumping agenda, rather than uphold the Constitution. Some of them are bound by a sense of right and wrong, while others are bound to political back-scratching.

Dumbshit, it was the administration that pressed the case, dumbshit.

It doesn't take a law degree to see the abuse here.

Nice to see you agree with us conservatives on the nature of activist judges...

By the logic behind the majority decision, it would also be illegal for me to grow wheat in my backyard for personal consumption.

That was established in the 1930s, dolt. Wickard.

Whether I grow wheat, marijuana, opium poppies, or anything else, it has ZERO æffect on interstate commerce -- so why would that clause be invoked to stop me? There's obviously some ulterior motive at work, and it's not upholding the Constitution. Maybe time to toss some SC Justices to the curb for blatant disregard for the law.

Good to see you agree with Frist and DeLay, Dins. Props.

If we can't count on the SCOTUS to uphold the law according to the Constitution, what good are they? I believe the Founding Fathers flagged this very thing as a red flag of impending tyranny, which the entire point of the Constitution and the Three Branches was to prevent tyranny, or special interest from exerting control.

Damn, I didn't know you were this conservative. So, you cheerleading Bush's judicial nominees?

DrDetroit wrote:
Bwaahahahahahaaaa!!!

It's satire, eh?? Bullshit.

So you do think this was a landmark decision? Why is it that no one else took the "landmark" reference seriously except you?

The Bush administration pursued because Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That means he's obligated to enforce the law. Congress passed the law (the Controlled Substances Act) and Bush was obligated to enforce it.

So why won't they enforce the immigration laws?

DrDetroit wrote: Damn, I didn't know you were this conservative.

Open your eyes. I don't align myself with conservatives or liberals. My trolling.....ERRRRR postings in this forum over the last couple of days shows that I can be quite conservative, or very liberal, depending on the issue. When it comes to personal or state's rights I usually tend to be extremely conservative. It just depends on whether the issue at hand hurts others ability in their "persuit of happiness" and whatsuch. If, for example, a logging company is hurting my ability to persue happiness in the wilderness, in exchange for profit for a few, then I'm opposed to them(one example). Call me a "tree hugging liberal" on that one. On the other hand, I don't see where a responsible person invoking their Second Amendment Rights to own a firearm æffects my persuit of happiness in any way, shape, or form. Call me a"right wing whacko" on that one. My opinions are fueled only by my sense of right and wrong.

Fiscally, if we're all to be organized and participating under one economy, which is definitely for the better(which I doubt you'll find anyone here under any affiliation that would disagree), I just want it to be fair for everyone, rather than a select few that already had a leg up in the game to start with.

And THAT is my point. I don't want the whole country to agree with me(although it would make this country a much better place). I also don't want the whole country to agree with one political party that is a schill for special interests(both parties being approximately equally guilty, although the dems at least spread their thievery a little thinner). I want for everyone to not point fingers and "choose sides," but instead follow their heart, and their sense of right and wrong. I have faith in the human/American spirit enough to trust the collective judgement. Unfortunately, our country and government have become too large for this to be a reality at this point. Too many followers, not enough leaders. But people are generally good-at-heart as a whole. The system just makes it tough to do the "right" thing, rather than do the partisan thing.

Someday, my rose-colored glasses might break, but until then, I'll keep on fighting the Good Fight. And I will NEVER endorse something just because one side told me to. I'm about as non-partisan as it gets. All I ask is that others be the same way, regardless where it leads them. Think with your brain, not your political party, or some silly "conservative/liberal" tags.

So you do think this was a landmark decision? Why is it that no one else took the "landmark" reference seriously except you?

I now think this was a landmark decision? Where do you come up with this stuff???

So why won't they enforce the immigration laws?

Not sure.

However, Bush was, indeed, enforcing the law as Congress passed it when this suit was pursued by the administration.