judicial tyranny

[Carl Remick]

>Pardon me for being a bore, but marijuana _is_ a controlled substance under
>21 USC 812, Schedule I(b)(10) ("marihuana"), and the SCt has jurisdiction 
>to
>interpret Congress' legislation (however dumb) about such substances.
>Moreover, it's clear that state law regulating mj is not preempted, so this
>is not a federalism issue. For what it is worth, I think the SCt's opinion
>is probably right in tracking Congress' intentions, although the 9C opinion
>that was overturned was a tolerable reading of the text. --jks

Then we get into the difference between "procedural" and "substantive" 
judicial review.  In the former, as I recall, the Supreme Court merely 
examines whether a law was passed in a Constitutional manner; in the latter, 
the SC decides whether Congress was just plain stupid in passing a law.  I'd 
say this was a case for substantive review if ever there was one.

Carl
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com