Nathan Newman wrote:
>So much for federalism.
-So much for democracy. This is the price you pay for letting courts -have enormous power to overturn laws on "constitutional" grounds.
Actually, no, since this decision was a deferral to federal law, not an overturning of the law based on the Constitution. I actually think this decision is the better decision on legal grounds (even though I disagree with the federal law) than the "federalism" decisions that have struck down national laws against rape, for gun control, and against disability and age discrimination by states.
The problem is that the Court rightwing is flagrantly political in picking and choosing which level of government to hold as dominating. They strike down state laws like the Burma law and medical marijuana in the name of federal power, then strike down federal laws like the ADA and Violence Against Women Act in the name of state power. The liberal wing is at least has a consistent legal philosophy in upholding federal law consistently, but like in Bush v. Gore, the conservatives on the Court have zero principles, just using various inconsistent federalism arguments to strike down the state and federal laws they don't like as political ideology takes them.
-- Nathan Newman