Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 20:49:03 -0400 From: John Mage <jmage at panix.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Re: judicial tyranny References: <200105170014.UAA06904 at dont.panix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Why in the world should anyone prefer your interpretation of what Congress said to that of the 9th Circuit panel? Because you know what's "right" and they - with all their collective legal experience - don't? Once a panel of the 9th Circuit said what they said, it's for all time an open question (or if you prefer a close question) as to what's "right." And if it's an open or close question, and one answer has evil consequences, there is an unavoidable *political* decision that must be made. That you are blind to this is sad.
john mage
Justin Schwartz wrote:
> Sure it could. Congress gets to decide how to reduce (or, if it chooses, to
> increase) human suffering. We in the judicial branch just interpret what
> Congress says. I can't go to the judge and say, hey, judge! I have a great
> idea to reduce human suffering. Let me write it up, and you issue the
> opinion!
>
> - --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