> 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
==========
This is dehistoricizing/decontextualizing the issues. The whole
history of drug laws in this country has been political-economic.
While there are complex and nuanced differences between legislation
and adjudication; for the courts to hide behind a well constructed
veil of "neutrality" in allowing legislators to write bad law upon bad
law upon bad law, is foisting an enormous tragedy on the citizenry.
The issue is Congress' intent to criminalize the exercise of
"unenumerated rights" which is totally political. Any suggestions on a
litigatory path out of the drug war that judges would accept.....?
The Supremes could have very narrowly decided the case the other way. They didn't because they fear the camel's nose in the tent collective action cascades reverberating throughout the land over the course of the decade when the Jesse Helms of the world go belly up and Abbie Hoffman's peers have an even larger impact on the political culture than they already do, pure and simple.
Ian