Subject:
|
Re: Supreme Court Rules Agains State Rights
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:42:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2075 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana.ap/index.html
>
> Hmm,
>
> > Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even
> > more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in
> > which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day
> > be heard in the halls of Congress."
>
> But apparently democratic processes in the states aren't important...
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.
One of the tidbits I carried away was that Stevens (as well as some other
current Supremes) is not widely regarded as a very good constitutional scholar,
that he tends to write opinions that are not necessarily in line with what
people would expect the constitutionality to be, but rather that are in line
with his personal views, and then makes up arguments to support them. That is,
when he's not just letting his clerks write them...
Yaay for Sandra (in the dissent)... too bad she supposedly wants to quit.
Supposedly common wisdom is that Bush may get to appoint as many as 3 new
Supremes. I'm scared at the very idea of that!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
