Today, SCOTUS released an opinion stating that it's A-ok for federal authorities to prosecute people who smoke weed for medicinal purposes under the advice of a physician.
The interesting thing is that the 6-3 decision was written by Stevens, with O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissenting. They argue that states should be able to make their own rules on such matters, since they do not implicate interstate commerce in any way.
Who'da thunk it?
Now, I'm as against drug-use as the next conservative thug, but come on, people! I know all the arguments against giving certain people "a pass" on drug laws, but let's think about this seriously for a minute...
Since I agree with Sandy, Billy, and Clarence that the feds should keep their noses out of the states' legitimate business, I obviously wouldn't begrudge these people being able to take advantage of their states' political processes. Which is what they're doing!!!
Hello? Mr. Justice Stevens?!!? Anyone home?
Stevens gives us the tired-old, "If you don't like the law, yada yada yada, you should work within the law to change it, yada yada yada."
But they do like the law, and that's why they argued against you changing it, Johnny.
Why can't the Supreme Court get their black-robed federal elitism out of my state's political process?
One thing about this decision is going to be interesting, though. It certainly shows the liberals on the court to be against states' rights at all costs, especially since the states with medicinal marijuana statutes are traditionally liberal bastions. It's going to be great watching how this is spun by the left.
Unless they just ignore it.
“Could sports-betting ruling invalidate US death penalty law?” - “Could sports-betting ruling invalidate US death penalty law?” Wilson Ring of The Associated Press has this report.
11 hours ago