« The Lies of EJ Montini | Main | That Was Fast »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"...However, one thing is clear. There's no hypocrisy; Republicans are following the rule of law even when they disagree with it."

I really enjoyed this lengthy post, and even agree with most of it.

But...

This gets personal since my bro-in-law has been dealing with MS for almost 25 years - and is in a wheelchair - and is very pissed that he is still reduced to begging off some medical weed via a support group member who regularly works (and has kept residencey in LA) in Cali.

Not the usual example - to be fortunate enough to have wealthy friends who can bail out what should be as easy as a trip to Walgreens in my humble CONSERVATIVE opinion.

Up until now all the machinations surrounding the delay on dispensaries is reasonable even if the appearence - to put it kindly - smacks of politial opportunism.

But for how long exactly? Until the court answers the Govs question on Dennis Burke's lawyerist version of tea with Alice?

Will it likewise necessitate massive class action filings by those who invested in providing comercial weed via this voter PASSED initative?

As a reborn capitalist after Reagan in the 80's I have loved the ten years here in the valley, current hard times included.

Napolitano and the progressives she foisted on us all helped convert me (among other issues & folks)into a re-born states rightist as well.

Already I'm falling into a common trap when trying to talk back to a lawyer on his blog regarding a long (out of necessity) winded explaination....so...to try and sum it up.

Medical weed is about as far from a 'states rights' issue in the current deliberate stall for political gain as it gets right now.

In fact I have every faith that the Health Dept folks have really done a smack job of ensuring there isn't some kind of explosion of weed at all levels in our communities - for young or old a like.

AS far as a threat I don't buy that is any 'there' there. What threat?

This should be working quite well for folks like my brother-in-law. It is not in need of extended litigation or study Greg. It's really pretty simple to let people with cancer and MS - or any doctor perscribed medical issue - smoke some doctor perscribed weed.

The Attny Gen and Gov (who have an established terse relationship with both Burke & Obama's DOJ to say the least) have a short leash on this for anything.

Today it's just annoying. In another three months I WILL SIGN A PETITION FOR THEIR RECALL!

"Obviously, even if we disagree with Supreme Court interpretations, we follow them."

Ya mean like Chicago, NY and NJ are following the Heller and McDonald decisions?

I'm more Jacksonian in this regard, Roberts made his decision, now he can enforce it.

I like your explanation and, for the most part, agree with your conclusions. However, the Supreme Court is full of crap when it comes to the Commerce Clause. The Founders, including Alexander Hamilton, the strongest pro-central government advocate of the bunch, are spinning in their graves. The Feds should go back--waaayyy back--to what the Founders intended; and controlling everything we consume (or in the case of health insurance what we may NOT consume) is not one of them.

State's Rights Forever!

John's version of Greg's quote changed "Republicans" to "we". I'm not sure why, except Republicans aren't in charge in NY, NJ or Chicago, so the example he uses to disprove Greg's assertion doesn't work if he leaves the original quote as it was.

I think Greg's version is accurate.

The point is, the Supreme Court decided that Chicago, NY and NJ are violating the Second Amendment - yet, nothing has changed despite the rulings in Heller and McDonald, thus the "... we follow them" is a bunch of hooey. We only follow SCOTUS decisions when they suit our personal proclivities. It'll be a cold day in hell before Bloomberg recognizes and ENFORCES the Heller and McDonald decisions.

I'm with John on this issue. SCOTUS decisions can, and often are, a joke - the commerce decisions being an example of sophistry at it's finest.

The more people that ignore the rulings that are so out of touch with common sense and reality, the better.

I am utterly dumbfounded that you can mention Gonzales v. Raich and mention that Scalia concurred with the liberal, anti-states rights opinion, and not mention in the body of the article (although you did link to it) that William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas all DISAGREED with the decision and wrote a pair of blistering dissents, correctly arguing that recognizing Congress' ability to restrict in-state marijuana sales effectively guts states' rights.

Short version, that case said, in effect, "sooner or later the legal weed is gonna cross a state line, thereby effecting the price of the illegal market in weed in other states, and therefore Congress has the right to regulate" - it's an absolutely absurd ruling, made only to uphold the status quo at the cost of constitutional principles.

Oops. I should change "effecting" to "affecting" above.

The comments to this entry are closed.