judicial tyranny

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 09:17 PM 5/16/01 +0000, Justin wrote:
>OK, take the medical marijuana decision. I think that a court's job in 
>statutory interpretation is to track the intent of the legislature. Do you 
>think Congress intended there to be an unexpressed, implicit exception to 
>the prohibitions in 21 USC about controlled substances, in the case of 
>marijuana, where there are express exceptions in the cases of morphine or 
>methadone, for example? Not a fucking chance. This isn't political. The 9C 
>wasn't dumb; it was a respectable opinion. But it was wrong. This isn't 
>politics. It's law. --jks

So you are saying that when the local laws contradict federal laws, the
principle requires that the former must yield, right?  Then how do you
explain Plessy v. Fergusson?  Autres temps, autres moeurs?

wojtek