I am sure that during my two-week blogging hiatus, much has been written about the inconsistency between Raich and Lopes and Morrison.
It is also fairly clear to me that the so-called "liberal majority" of the Court sacrificed medical marijuana users for the sake of a long-term goal - expanding federal power to regulate anything under the Sun through the Commerce Clause. Hm, since passage of Congressional control to the Democrats is not really within site, the long-term outcome may not be what the majority bargained for.
I also had to smile while reading Justice Scalia's concurrence that
"the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce"
Why would regulations in Lopez and Morrison not pass under the above test?
But I was really struck by the following concluding passage in the majority opinion:
"We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress. "
When one combines the expected life span for the some of the people using pot to alleviate pain with their ostensible lack of lobbying pull in Washington, that last passage either shows the Court lack of touch with reality or is just mean.
Comments