> 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
Justin, as you say, the 9C panel wasn't dumb and further they were not bad lawyers or bad judges, & their clerks were no less bright, no less principled, no less consistent and persuasive than you (OK, maybe a little). What is at issue is a great great deal of human suffering.
If their opinion was "respectable" - given what is at issue - it could not be "wrong."