Interesting vote

[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060600666.html|Washington Post]

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined in her dissent by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor is a pretty odd lot. That Scalia doesn't appear on that list is a bit of a surprise, but not much as he has gotten rather odd in recent years. I would have been surprised if the decision had gone the other way, but I was surprised at the 10-3 vote, I was expecting an 8-5 or 7-6 vote.

In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

I wonder if Stevens realizes that is an argument for legalization, not one against it.

Jay

Post #210,036 by JayMehaffey 6/6/05 12:27:56 PM Reply	Interesting vote [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060600666.html\|Washington Post] "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined in her dissent by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor is a pretty odd lot. That Scalia doesn't appear on that list is a bit of a surprise, but not much as he has gotten rather odd in recent years. I would have been surprised if the decision had gone the other way, but I was surprised at the 10-3 vote, I was expecting an 8-5 or 7-6 vote. In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said. I wonder if Stevens realizes that is an argument for legalization, not one against it. Jay
Post #210,039 by Another Scott 6/6/05 12:33:39 PM Reply	Um, there are still only 9 justices on the USSC. ;-)
Post #210,161 by JayMehaffey 6/6/05 11:19:46 PM Reply	Posting in a rush over lunch :(
Post #210,040 by jb4 6/6/05 12:36:14 PM Reply	Vote early, vote often? None of the USSC Justices are, as far as I know, from Chicago.... ;-\ufffd jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #210,260 by mmoffitt 6/7/05 1:46:15 PM Reply	So, can we conclude that Thomas, O'Connor and Rehnquist ... are the old stoners on the bench? bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. God Bless America.

Welcome to IWETHEY!