What was the verdict on the SCOTUS marijuana case?

[Trey Brister]

What was the verdict on the SCOTUS marijuana case? anybody know?

[question]

They will rule next summer.

almost certainly that the doctrine of preemption invalidates all state laws permitting medical marijuana

[question]

From my understanding, that only applies if the pot being supplied is taking part in interstate commerce. If it's not, then it falls under intrastate commerce, and it's a states rights issue.

Originally Posted by xiannaix

almost certainly that the doctrine of preemption invalidates all state laws permitting medical marijuana

Originally Posted by question

From my understanding, that only applies if the pot being supplied is taking part in interstate commerce. If it's not, then it falls under intrastate commerce, and it's a states rights issue.

I don't think that's the case.... butit could be, do you have the briefs? We could find out what issues were presented to the court...

go here.... findlaw.com

[question]

There's a bit more information in this article:

Originally Posted by WMTW Article

By Laurie Kinney
News 8 WMTW Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - At the Supreme Court Monday, the issue was medical marijuana -- and whether the federal government can stop patients from using it, even if a state's law says it's legal.

Monday's case involves two California women who say they shouldn't be prosecuted under federal law for using marijuana for medical reasons -- and it could affect thousands of patients in a growing number of states.

Angel Raich claims medical marijuana use, legal in her home state of California, lets her live with the pain of a brain tumor. Now her case and that of another patient, Diane Monson, are in the hands of U.S. Supreme Court justices. They will decide if the federal government can enforce its marijuana ban, even when a state says medical use is okay.

Raich calls it a matter of life and death.

The Justice Department argues medical exceptions undermine federal efforts to control illicit drugs and that the federal government can intervene under its right to control interstate commerce.

But lawyers for the patients in this case say it has nothing to do with commerce or marijuana trafficking. They say the government's argument does not apply, because neither patient bought or sold drugs. Moreover, they say states have the right to control medical practices in their borders.

But to opponents, medical marijuana is a slippery slope.

Now the court must decide. Its ruling is expected in several months.

There are eleven states, including Maine, that currently allow medical marijuana use.

It seems the plaintiff is arguing the case on the merit of commerce, in order to make it a states right issue. Because if they make it a states right issue, and prove that the pot only affects intrastate commerce, federal laws don't apply. They only apply to interstate commerce. And since the pot isn't being bought or sold, there really isn't any "commerce" going on. And it says that they're arguing it on the merit that the states have the right to control medical practices within their borders.

There's a bit more information in the fark comments here

Originally Posted by xiannaix

I don't think that's the case.... butit could be, do you have the briefs? We could find out what issues were presented to the court...

go here.... findlaw.com

Originally Posted by question

There's a bit more information in this article:



It seems the plaintiff is arguing the case on the merit of commerce, in order to make it a states right issue. Because if they make it a states right issue, and prove that the pot only affects intrastate commerce, federal laws don't apply. They only apply to interstate commerce. And since the pot isn't being bought or sold, there really isn't any "commerce" going on. And it says that they're arguing it on the merit that the states have the right to control medical practices within their borders.

There's a bit more information in the fark comments here

I've never read a news article that got the story right when reporting on a case before the court.... see no reason why it'd start now. They report sensational and intellectually sapped garbage.

I'll see if I can find the briefs.....

Originally Posted by question

There's a bit more information in this article:



It seems the plaintiff is arguing the case on the merit of commerce, in order to make it a states right issue. Because if they make it a states right issue, and prove that the pot only affects intrastate commerce, federal laws don't apply. They only apply to interstate commerce. And since the pot isn't being bought or sold, there really isn't any "commerce" going on. And it says that they're arguing it on the merit that the states have the right to control medical practices within their borders.

There's a bit more information in the fark comments here

as a general comment...

The Federal government needs to have a basis for jurisdiction to enforce the law in question.

The empowering clause here is apparently the Interstate Commerce Clause.

That could prove an interesting issue... Thomas wrote a great dissent or concurring - hell maybe even majority opinion - regarding the use of ICC to criminalize a gun w/in X feet of a school (San Antonion case). I believe that case is commonly regarded as the high water mark for the reach of the federal government into areas traditionally reserved to the states... criminal jurisdiction.

question...... I blame you..... now I'm going to have to find those damn briefs and that opinion from Thomas.... arrggghhh

[question]

Bwahahahah!!

So, the way I understand it ... Thomas actually ruled in favor of states rights?! Everyone made him out to be the Fed's lapdog! From what I understand of Scalia, he shoudl be foaming at the mouth over this case. He's a huge proponent of states rights.

Originally Posted by xiannaix

as a general comment...

The Federal government needs to have a basis for jurisdiction to enforce the law in question.

The empowering clause here is apparently the Interstate Commerce Clause.

That could prove an interesting issue... Thomas wrote a great dissent or concurring - hell maybe even majority opinion - regarding the use of ICC to criminalize a gun w/in X feet of a school (San Antonion case). I believe that case is commonly regarded as the high water mark for the reach of the federal government into areas traditionally reserved to the states... criminal jurisdiction.

question...... I blame you..... now I'm going to have to find those damn briefs and that opinion from Thomas.... arrggghhh

Originally Posted by question

Bwahahahah!!

So, the way I understand it ... Thomas actually ruled in favor of states rights?! Everyone made him out to be the Fed's lapdog! From what I understand of Scalia, he shoudl be foaming at the mouth over this case. He's a huge proponent of states rights.

Thomas is quite probably THE greatest supporter of state's rights on the bench.... Scalia a close second, but, imo, he occassionally finds other concerns that trump that tradition. (that's just my feeling... I've read lots of their decisions but by no means all of them - so I could be wrong... but that's my gut)


Thomas is generally regarded as Scalia's lapdog - as I recall - this issue is one where they diverge..... very slightly. Scalia IS a huge state's rights guy to be sure.


Scalia wrote an interesting dissent on a consumer rights case in the last term. It concerned literal reading of a law vs congressional intent. Short version... Scalia says the law is what it says it is - not what congress may have intended (the court must not be responsible for correctring poor drafting....and he's right about that.) There's an old King's Bench case on the subject that said, "If Parlaiment does not mean what Parlaiment says, Parlaiment must say so." when the Crown asked the court to give support to the law's argued intent rather than to its plain reading.