1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Oregon Assisted Suicide SC Ruling: Thomas Dissent

Discussion in 'Legal' started by publius, Jan 18, 2006.

  1. publius

    publius Well-Known Member

    I know someone will ask how this is gun related. In addition to the fact that I'm pretty sure this whole interstate commerce thingy is all tied up with our gun rights, this one is about giving someone a prescription for a lethal dose. If someone is denied a lethal dose, he might start fishing around the house for something lethal...

    Anyway, does anyone else see Justice Thomas using this one as his own big "I told you so" for the rest of the Court?

    I'm not so sure that was "respectfully" but anyway... ;)
  2. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    it seems to me that what thomas is saying is that lower courts could interpret this as SCOTUS reversing their ruling in Raich, which means, we get our machine guns back, and the hippies get their weed back.

    wishful thinking, i know...
  3. Biker

    Biker Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  4. Telperion

    Telperion Well-Known Member

    That's my read of it: Thomas taking the opportunity to scoff at his fellow Justices' capriciousness and rub their noses in it. In my opinion, Thomas is the brightest bulb on the Court. I've certainly never read a dull opinion by Thomas.
  5. Igloodude

    Igloodude Well-Known Member

    Intriguing thought. Thomas dissented in Raich, after all... :scrutiny:
  6. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Clarence Thomas knows he is right, and I think a lot of people who follow the court agree, myself among them. To apparently reverse a major constitutional issue in a statutory interpretation case is completely capricious and I'm glad we have someone up there pointing it out.

    I feel that Raich was decided wrongly because it grossly misinterpreted the text and the intent of the constitution. This case didnt present an opportunity to revisit Raich and was thus also wrongly decided because it implicitly rejected all of the holdings of Raich.

    The virtually unlimited commerce clause authority from Raich is INCOMPATIBLE with limited powers or any concept of 10th amendment federalism. The Supreme Court urgently needs to establish a single, clear principle that decides what limits the constitution puts around congress and then award the rest to the discretion of the states. You know, like they did in 1789.
  7. RealGun

    RealGun Well-Known Member

    If the commerce clause issue were really addressed, insisting that interstate commerce had to be genuine and straightforward, some of these cases might have no basis to be accepted by federal courts, other than to address prior rulings that needed to be overturned as a result. Then cases that didn't meet the test of genuine IC couldn't be appealed, i.e. wouldn't be accepted, beyond a State Supreme Court. Is that correct?
  8. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Wrong, because the suprme court can review laws on other grounds. It has always been this way.

    A lot of cases would stop appearing before federal courts, if only because many unconstitional laws would be nullified by a correction of CC jurisprudence. These laws could be enacted at a state level (much like CA's assault weapon ban) but people could avoid any stupid laws by moving to states without such laws. It would actually be a much better system in a variety of ways.

    As a matter of fact, federal courts would probably be pretty quiet with no narcotics or firearms cases to hear. And the state and local court system would be unburdened as well since people breaking laws they felt unjust would probably move en masse to jurisdictions where those laws werent in place.

    If you want to own machine guns you wouldnt live in NYC and if you want to sip bourbon you wouldnt live in a dry county in Alabama. The current system applies a one-size-fits all rule to every nook and cranny of the US. There are no areas of the country where you can smoke weed legally, nor are there any areas in the country where someone wishing to purchase new machine guns can do so.
  9. RealGun

    RealGun Well-Known Member

    You say "wrong" but then go on to pick up on what I had in mind. The question really is what would happen if the house of cards was torn down. The what-if can make an interesting story.

    For example, why wouldn't some now consider moving to Oregon?
  10. Kharn

    Kharn Well-Known Member

    +1, and the left claim's he's stupid. Who's stupid now? :neener:

  11. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Well-Known Member

    Clarence Thomas

    Is the brightest man (or woman) on the Court right now. This is exactly why the libs had to dig up Anitta Hill to sully him several years ago. I can only hope that Alito and (I can't think of his name. New Chief Justice.) will follow in his legal and fairly strict Constitutional footsteps.

    Edit to remove emoticon. Didn't come across like I meant it to.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2006
  12. RealGun

    RealGun Well-Known Member

    I think they like making the law more or less than it is. They probably also enjoy the notion that only the very brightest can keep up. Thomas is kind of the hero of common sense.
  13. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Wrong because the supreme court can still review stuff.
    Wrong again because State Supreme Courts cannot overturn federal law. The lower federal circuits would apply a supreme court precedent reversing wickard and the Supreme Court would deny certiorari unless they wrongly applied the new precedent.

    Nothing within the courts is structurally or procedurally changed. The main change to the courts would be the types and quantity of cases they would get.

    The change to the average person on the street would probably be fairly big since people would be free to do many things legal under state laws but illegal under federal laws.

    After such a decision, indviduals in jail would probably start filing writs challenging their imprisonment for breaking laws that have been implicitly nullified by the new decision. Probably close to a million people would be getting out of federal prison on the drug issue alone. I personally suspect this was the implicit reasoning for Raich.
  14. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    I always enjoy reading Thomas's opinions and consider him the most libertarian minded Justice on the court. Sadly, I do not expect to see that trend from Roberts, Alito or Scalia. They will be more traditional conservatives and will expand the power of the state, especially WRT law enforcement.
  15. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    I fear that you are absolutly correct, Bart. The next Sup. Ct. will be even more critical.
  16. RealGun

    RealGun Well-Known Member

    The difference could be in whether they grant cert.
  17. publius

    publius Well-Known Member

    There will be no judicial revolution, not even a mild one.

    The Court took a small step toward reining in federal power in Lopez, and what happened next? Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zones Act the next year, attached it to a must-pass bill, and Clinton signed it, and it became law. It has not been challenged.

    Had they gone the other way in Raich, it would have been another small step in the right direction, but it was not a challenge to the Controlled Substance Act itself, it was only a challenge to how that Act applied to certain people acting under California law.

    But what's next? Will 5 judges tell millions of Americans that many of the federal laws they take for granted are not legitimate, and must go away? Will millions of Americans listen?
  18. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    There is a pair of clean water act cases coming up soon. One was denied certiorari and then granted cert a year later. It involves a man being imprisoned and fined for destroying "wetlands" which consisted of a puddle in a cornfield 20 miles from the nearest body of water. There is another one involving a paper mill in maine.

    It looks like they might still have some fondness for going in the lopez/morrison direction. Even the majority opinion for raich raised the question of why they didnt assert that congress lacked authority to enact the CSA.
  19. publius

    publius Well-Known Member

    Possibly because that argument has been raised and rejected numerous times. It might be true, but the courts are just not going to hear it.
  20. VARifleman

    VARifleman Well-Known Member

    Roberts is the new Chief Justice.

Share This Page