The Next Supreme

[Haggis@wk]

Confirm Them reports that "an extremely reliable source" called to say that Chief Justice Rehnquist will retire within the next month.

Confirm Them predicts that Judge Michael McConnell will be the administration's choice to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice.

Judge McConnell is a great choice.

I think the Democrats will fight him tooth and nail, but they will be hampered somewhat by the fact that he breezed through his 10th Circuit nomination process not long ago.

McConnell also has a disarming professorial demeanor that would cause most people watching confirmation hearings on television to react with puzzlement to Democratic claims that he is somehow "extreme" or "out of the mainstream."

Let the circus begin.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Judge McConnell's CV looks very impressive. Of course, that was the law college's PR desk issuing it.

It seems to me that appointments of anybody to anything now elicit a reflexive "NO!" from the other party. Doesn't seem to matter which party is nominating and which is other. Is this any way to run a country?

Is there any way we can make politicians reasonable?

[Haggis@wk]

"politicians reasonable"

Isn't that a mutually exclusive phrase?

[Marye]

Haggis, what decisions has McConnell handed down recently that would make the Dems fight tooth and nail? taking into account, of course, that an opposition party's role is to oppose..

Is McConnell to the right of, say, Attila the Hun?

[Shapley]

Here's some information from the left on Judge McConnell:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=5631

http://blog.au.org/

Here's a letter of endorsement from the DOJ:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/michaelmcconnellsupportletter.htm

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

Dazed & Confused About Federal Power

The chief author of our Constitution, James Madison, had little patience for those who accused him and his allies of trying to create a large, intrusive federal government. In 1788, he noted pointedly that the,

“powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

”Those of the states", by contrast,“are numerous and indefinite.”

This week, addressing the same question, the Supreme Court said,

“James who?”

and so in “Gonzales vs. Raich."

Monson should have won her case in a walk. (I don't agree with her but I am a strict Constitutionalist)

The marijuana she used was not part of interstate commerce. In the first place, it was never any kind of commerce: She grew it herself.

In addition, it never left her home state. No one in Nevada or Arizona smelled the smoke or enjoyed the high.

Yet this Supreme Court managed to find excuses to rule against her. Justice John Paul Stevens, quoting from a 1942 decision, insisted that even if an activity,

“is local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”

Oh? The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce — not anything that affects interstate commerce.

Still, it’s absurd to think Monson’s six plants could have even the slightest effect on the national market for marijuana.

So the court was driven to say that Congress not only has the power to regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce, it has the power to regulate anything that might affect anything that might affect interstate commerce.

Me and Barf and Shape have a goal.....

As dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas warned,

“If the majority is to be taken seriously, the federal government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states.”

This is important to all of us, guys!!!!

Justice Scalia said back on March 14th of this year:

”You see, I have my rules that confine me. I know what I’m looking for. When I find it, the original meaning of the Constitution, I am handcuffed. If I believe that the First Amendment meant when it was adopted that you are entitled to burn the American flag, I have to come out that way, even though I don’t like to come out that way. When I find that the original meaning of the jury trial guarantee is that any additional time you spend in prison which depends upon a fact, must depend upon a fact found by a jury, once I find that’s what the jury trial guarantee means, I am handcuffed. Though I’m a law and order type, I can not do all the mean conservative things I would like to do to this society. You got me.”

This week, Justice Scalia sang a different tune. This week, he joined in the chorus of “James who?”

[OperaTenor]

I have to say, I agree. To be honest, I would have expected the exact opposite vote result from the Supremes, the liberal end upholding the individual's right, not the case becoming a state's rights issue.

This kind of ruling paints the Judiciary in a power-grubbing kind of light, IMO.

But then, what do I know?

[Shapley]

Haggis & OT,

Sadly, this is the type of ruling I would have expected, no matter who sits on the bench. The "War on Drugs" has so corrupted the definition of "Commerce" that any contrary ruling would negate many of the drug laws, and possibly others, now on the books. It's a sad statement on the situation of the law.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I want to go on record as categorically opposing the federal regulation of quilting bees and potluck suppers. Clothing drives, however, could use some sort of regulation.

Perhaps the judiciary would improve, given judicious doses of Interstate Commerce Domestic Weed?

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shap,

You bring up an interesting point. Please don't take this as justification for the majority ruling, but perhaps they saw this as opening the door for more insidious problems, like, say, home-grown methamphetamine or heroin, the one huge differing distinction of course being that meth or heroin doesn't have the kind of medicinal properties as does medicinal merryhaha. And perhaps the Supremes didn't want to get that specific.

Whatever it was, I'm with youse guys, bad ruling.

<Moment of silence, please.......all three of us agree on something!>

[piqaboo]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
Hi Shap,
Whatever it was, I'm with youse guys...
<Moment of silence, please.......all three of us agree on something!>

Where is my husband and what have you done with him?!!

[OperaTenor]

He's been given "PNAC truth serum", and is being held hostage.

Meanwhile, Lula and Bottom...............

Oops, wrong thread.....

[Haggis@wk]

As I said, I don't support the legalization of drugs but I do support the concept that states' right trumps the federal government in this instance.

If a majority of a state is willing to okay some behavior that the rest of the states don't like, then that majority has the right.

Granted, the case of medical marijuana is little more than a careful contrived hoax to let heads get marijuana, but still, those heads managed to convince a majority of voters.

The good news is that the U.S. has been trending more conservative since the 80’s and a conservative SC of 2015 – 2030 will reverse a lot of the laws based on a “fuzzy spin” interpretation of the Constitution.

Hmmmmm “Chief Justice Thomas” has a nice ring to it.

(Ed. "That'll rearrange any 'moment of silence'")

[piqaboo]

Fear-monger!

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Haggis@wk:
[QB but still, those heads managed to convince a majority of voters. [/qb]

[snark] But that shouldn't matter, since we live in a "representative republic", right? [/snark]

Ultimatum originally delivered by Haggis:
Hmmmmm “Chief Justice Thomas” has a nice ring to it.

(Ed. "That'll rearrange any 'moment of silence'")

No it won't. I'm now stunned to silence..........



PS. No canned Coke in his chambers!

[Haggis@wk]

"[snark] But that shouldn't matter, since we live in a "representative republic", right? [/snark]"

It SHOULD matter, I believe in states' rights. Hey face it, California is a basket case in the panoply of the 50, but if the majority (for clarification, a "majority" in CA and most other states translate to 4 per cent of the total voting population) decide they want to smoke a noxious weed, then so be it.

I really, REALLY feel that strongly about states right.....


Piq,

Tacky, SO tacky

P.S. Hope you like Army knives, Swiss or otherwise

P.P.S. Spent 20 mins on the phone with Selma today, told her I'd be "in country" tomorrow AM.....

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Yes, and I remembered to burn that CD and wrap it in a piece of paper and fling it in my purse. I'll probably forget that I've got it by tomorrow, you'll have to remind me. Twice. Then it'll take several minutes to find it, once I start digging.

[barfle]

Interstate commerce my ass!

OK, public confession. I've tried wacky tobacky, and found it more painful than pleasant. I'm a reformed cigarette smoker, and I've been known to ingest the occasional Scotch and water, or on other occasions to enhance the treasuries of various breweries, but for the most part I would rather be sober.

So I'm not looking for a way to get high legally.

The war on drugs was lost before it was declared. My own opinion is that the government should do with drugs what they did with Viet Nam. Declare victory and abandon the project.

I know a few people who enjoy the occasional toke, but I have no idea where they get it. They might grow it themselves, but I don't bother to ask since I have no interest in knowing. I believe there is some medicinal value to marijuana, although it seems to apply to a small minority of cases.

I've read conflicting reports about the dangers of smoking marijuana. The lack of quality control would concern me if I were of the mind to partake, which would then lead me to grow my own. At least I would know which insecticides were used.

After all that, as you might guess, I favor the legalization of marijuana (as well as other recreational drugs, but they're not part of this discussion yet). I would rather my friends buy their herbs from a reputable manufacturer than from some gangster with a monopoly on his turf. Legalizing (and regulating, like alcohol) marijuana would eliminate a large piece of criminal activity that is really little more than a black market, allowing that commerce to be regulated and taxed as other businesses are, and would also eliminate the sending of neighboorhood entrepreneurs to the universities of criminal behavior, commonly called "prisons."

[Shapley]

Chief Justice Thomas. I like that. I does have a nice ring to it.

Barfle, I agree, but at this juncture we seem to be driving tobacco in the direction of marijuana, not vice-versa.

I have no desire to smoke marijuana, but I think that we have done the Constitution a great injustice by allowing the definition of "interstate commerce" to be expanded in the name of some phony "war on drugs".

And I won't even go into what the "asset forfeiture" laws have done to "lawful search and seizure".

V/R
Shapley

[piqaboo]

originally posted by Haggis:
Piq,

Tacky, SO tacky

Thank you. I'm touched by the high praise!


and oh yesssssssssssss. I realllllllllly like.....sssssharp thingsssssss.............