Quantcast
  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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    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

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,098
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  4. Telperion

    Telperion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Oregon
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    southern NH
    Intriguing thought. Thomas dissented in Raich, after all... :scrutiny:
     
  6. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,999
    Location:
    Maryland
    +1, and the left claim's he's stupid. Who's stupid now? :neener:

    Kharn
     
  11. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,380
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    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

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    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

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    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

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    I fear that you are absolutly correct, Bart. The next Sup. Ct. will be even more critical.
     
  16. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    The difference could be in whether they grant cert.
     
  17. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    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

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Northern VA
    Roberts is the new Chief Justice.
     
  21. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    No, they havent rejected it, not recently at least.

    And I always thought it was the death knell of Raich when Scalia (I think) was asking if regulating the environment could be done through the commerce clause and her lawyers were like "oh no, we are just arguing for a more narrow exception to the CSA based on interstate commerce."

    Then again, if they were unwilling to grant a narrow exemption, there is no reason they will grant a sweeping one.

    My main gripe is a lack of consistency from ruling to ruling on the commerce clause. You cant really apply their rulings to facts outside of the case. Usually when the supreme court rules, you get some principle that is applicable to future cases with somewhat similar facts. In the recent commerce clause cases, you get clever verbal gymnastics in the majority opinion but nothing really solid to stand on. I would never have predicted the outcome of Gonzales vs Oregon in light of Raich which essentially contradict one another.
     
  22. roo_ster

    roo_ster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    USA
    Yet more proof why the leftists continually try to destroy Thomas. He sees their bravo sierra for what it is and call them on it.

    In Ann Coulter's words, "Bush ought to find eight more just like Thomas. For one thing, it would be really cool to have an all-black Supreme Court. But mostly it would be nice to go back to living in a democracy again."
     
  23. Beren

    Beren Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,388
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    It's not just the leftists. If Roberts and Scalia were half the jurist Thomas is, our principles of liberty would be far better safeguarded.
     
  24. xd9fan

    xd9fan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,858
    Location:
    Under tyranny in Midwest
    wednesday's Jan 8th Wall Street Journal op-ed has a GREAT writeup on this case titled "Federalism, a la Carte"
    I dont have access to post it online but the best line of the article has to be

    "We sympathize with justice Thomas's suggestion that this is another case of results-oriented jurisprudence in federalist drag."

    "The Bush Administration was also guilty in theis case of abandoning for political purposes what ought to be its own federalism principles. Mr Ashcroft had reversed a policy of the Clinton Administration in order to invalidate the Oregon law at the behest of social conservatives who had lost the political battle over assisted suicide in that state. Results-oriented jurisprudence isn't any more admirable from the right than it is from the left."
     
  25. LJWebster1

    LJWebster1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Read "Scalia Dissents" if you want to know Justice Scalia. He is absolutely committed to the Constitution. If that means sometimes his opinions don't get conservatives or libertarians where they want to be, too bad. If it's not in the Constitution or the traditions of this country, then Scalia wants no part of it, and leaves it to either Congress or the People to decide. Thomas is an amazing Justice as well, and I had the pleasure of meeting him in person when I was in law school. He is the most humble "VIP" I've ever seen. Truly great mind, which makes Harry Reid's contention that he is not bright all the more racist and ridiculous. I have high hopes for this Court. If the 4 of these Justices can convince just one of the other 5 to start reading the Constution as it is written, instead of how they would have written it, then we will be in good shape!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page