 | | Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(URL) Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even (...) But apparently democratic processes in the states aren't important... Frank (19 years ago, 6-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(...) Well, we already knew that, didn't we? Despite his putative support of states' rights, he's never missed the chance to curtail them. Man oh man is this a stupid ruling. Shame on the SCOTUS. Dave! (19 years ago, 6-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(...) Reason this month had an interesting series of articles about the Supremes. Stuff analysing their work, and asking people to predect who MIGHT be nominated and who the person asked liked, as well as favorite past justices... fascinating stuff. (...) (19 years ago, 6-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(...) May I present Justices (URL), (URL) Moore>, and (URL) Brown>. Dave! (19 years ago, 6-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(...) Civil disobedience is next, it looks like. (URL) been tried before and didn't work very well. But she has more character than those that deny they ever did it (43) or claim they didn't inhale(42). ++Lar (19 years ago, 6-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What Were Those Justices Smoking? (was Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(URL) via Reason) COMMENTARY June 7 2005 What Were Those Justices Smoking? - The medical marijuana ruling is legally and morally flawed. By Nick Gillespie, Nick Gillespie is editor in chief of Reason magazine. The most important quote, IMHO: - start (...) (19 years ago, 9-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More from REASON - A Nation of Liars (was Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(URL) for you, John: " Those who fret about morality in America, take note: Raich v. Gonzales codifies our status as a Nation of Liars." (19 years ago, 9-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More from REASON - A Nation of Liars (was Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(...) If you lie about marijuana use, yeah, you are a liar. What's complicated about that? The libertarian in me says legalize marijuana, prostitution, drugs etc, but then I have to look at what kind of society would be the result. From where I'm (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: More from REASON - A Nation of Liars (was Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
|
(...) Nothing. It's not a complicated point at all... we're governed by liars (Clinton "didn't inhale" and Bush "never did it"... right!... I beleive that!), surrounded by liars, are liars ourselves, and it's due to this stupid prohibition, just (...) (19 years ago, 11-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
