You know one Supreme Court case the Senators aren't grilling Roberts about? Despite all the talk about the Commerce Clause at the hearing, none of them wants to bring up Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case. Wouldn't you think the Democrats would want to champion the rights of the powerless, suffering cancer patient, oppressed by the government, with whom the heartless Supreme Court Justices could not empathize? (And I'm putting the question that way because that is the attitude many of the Democratic Senators are taking, such as yesterday when Dianne Feinstein mourned over all the victims of gun violence the Supreme Court didn't care about when it struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act in Lopez.)
Angel Raich lost her case because the Court interpreted the Commerce Clause as broad enough to support the Controlled Substances Act, with its comprehensive ban on marijuana, which reaches even homegrown, home-consumed marijuana, even when it is used for medicinal purposes by severely ill persons according to a state regulatory program, a program adopted as the result of a democratic vote by the people of a state. If the Court was wrong, it was wrong because it found that Congress had too much power. The Senators don't want to push Roberts to say that they lack power. They only want to hear that the power is there for them to do everything they want and that their judgment about what is best is better than any court's judgment. Of course, the power to change the result in Raich lies entirely in their hands. The Senators are the source of the law that oppresses the powerless, suffering cancer patient. Why don't they amend it and add an exception?
Too bad John Roberts can't give back what he has to sit there and take. I would love to hear him grill them about the federal laws that demonstrate their lack of empathy for the oppressed.
September 15, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
They're not exactly jumping up and down about Kelo v. New London, either - hopefully praying that no-one wil notice WHICH five justices decided that case, which has descended into instant infamy having been decried by BOTH sides. It remains a case wrongly-decided by the very Judtices the Democrats on the committee are trying to lionize, and opposed by the very Justices that the Democrats are asking Roberts not to be.
Gerry -
What a splendid idea. That would be infinitely preferable to what's going on now.
Alphecca noted that in response to a 2nd Amendment question Roberts, while not stating his position on it, implied that the Commerce Clause would not apply if you bought in the state of manufacture.
This in turn implies he might have voted against using it in the Raich case.
The total lack of intellectual horsepower on the part of the 'best and brightest' the Democrat party has is truly striking. When taken off their written scripts they just flounce in the sun. I actually expected more. It's as if they have taken the measure of Roberts and decided to cede the field.
The whole notion of the need for medical marijuana is specious, there are perscription drugs which provide the exact same substance for the sick.
The whole hearing has been stunning in it's vacancy of substance.
The total lack of intellectual horsepower on the part of the 'best and brightest' the Democrat party has is truly striking.
I take offense at that - even as a Republican - on behalf of my Democratic bretheren. These men - and Sen. Feinstein - are in no serious way "the 'best and brightest' [that] the Democrat party has [to offer]". There are about 25-30 far better and far brighter Democrats in the Senate, just for starters. As I said a few days ago, if Joe Biden is a "serious contender" for the Democratic nomination, then the Dems are in way, way worse trouble than I think they are.
Re Crimsonplat's comment: Oh my but that's a lot!
Jim wrote ...On the other hand, "conservatives" or more particularly "social conservatives" are uncomfortable with the "rule" (presumably because they realize there may be a day when they are not in control)..."
I would respectfully disagree. The reason that conservatives are uncomfortable with the rule is that it is another weakening in the principle of enumerated powers. Although you'd be hard pressed to drawn the conclusion from the work the Republicans currently in Congress (and down the mall) the idea of limited powers of government is the essence of the conservative worldview.
"The total lack of intellectual horsepower on the part of the 'best and brightest' the Democrat party has is truly striking."
"Intellectual horsepower" is not what wins you elections these days, for either party.
Clearly.
Stand out, and you will be hammered down. Again, that applies to both parties.
I would love to hear him grill them about the federal laws that demonstrate their lack of empathy for the oppressed.
Well, you know that is supposed to be the job of the Fourth Estate. You're right that it would significantly elevate the quality of discourse, and that fact alone illustrates how the unholy alliance between Big Media and one political party as disserved the Republic.
Indeed, this comment...
The total lack of intellectual horsepower on the part of the 'best and brightest' the Democrat party has is truly striking.
...suggests it has equally disserved the Democratic Party, by allowing their leadership to grow soft and their intellect to rot. By failing in its job of helping clear out the deadwood at the top, so that truly competent young Democrats can rise, Big Media has unwittingly help atherosclerosize the Democratic Party. The irony would be hilarious if it weren't sad for the country.
As long as folks buy into "drugs cause addiction" the drug war will continue.
If drug taking was seen as a response to pain (a novel idea to be sure) the drug war would be over in a very short time.
Is your pain legal?
Heroin
Light a big one up!
Post a Comment