--jks
0
>
>Justin Schwartz 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
> >
>
>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."
>
>
>john mage
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com