But...
But.
Despite the growing list of Republican iniquities, they pale in comparison to the potential impact of the two recent appalling Supreme Court rulings on medical marijuana and eminent domain.
From a Wall Street Journal editorial:
Of course we all know that the court's conservative judges had to be behind both of those, right? I mean, what could be more conservative than banning pot and corporate welfare?
What? What's that you say? Liberal judges are behind all this? Say it ain't so!
Yes, in yesterday's eminent domain ruling, justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens endorsed the view that a legitimate "public use" of private property (read: your home) includes building a hotel complex and an office for a big corporation. This is because the new project will create jobs and bring in more taxes, you see.
In the medical marijuana ruling two weeks ago, the same judges, plus the conservative Scalia, said that the Constitution's clause about regulating interstate commerce can be applied to marijuana grown by a person for their own use in treating agonizing diseases.
What I find most interesting is Clarence Thomas's vehement dissent in both cases. He is so often painted as an arch-conservative monster when in fact he is a strict constitutionalist who probably does more work than any other justice to try to interpret the original meaning of the text and the founders' intent. I wonder if these two rulings will in any way boost his standing.
Despite the growing list of Republican iniquities, they pale in comparison to the potential impact of the two recent appalling Supreme Court rulings on medical marijuana and eminent domain.
From a Wall Street Journal editorial:
So, in just two weeks, the Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions on the limits of government. In Raich v. Gonzales the Court said there are effectively no limits on what the federal government can do using the Commerce Clause as a justification. In Kelo, it's now ruled that there are effectively no limits on the predations of local governments against private property.More interesting is that the court split pretty much the same way on both decisions. You had the same lineup of judges ruling against medical marijuana and for expanding the government's power to seize private property and give it to businesses.
These kinds of judicial encroachments on liberty are precisely why Supreme Court nominations have become such high-stakes battles. If President Bush is truly the "strict constructionist" he professes to be, he will take note of the need to check this disturbing trend should he be presented with a High Court vacancy.
Of course we all know that the court's conservative judges had to be behind both of those, right? I mean, what could be more conservative than banning pot and corporate welfare?
What? What's that you say? Liberal judges are behind all this? Say it ain't so!
Yes, in yesterday's eminent domain ruling, justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens endorsed the view that a legitimate "public use" of private property (read: your home) includes building a hotel complex and an office for a big corporation. This is because the new project will create jobs and bring in more taxes, you see.
In the medical marijuana ruling two weeks ago, the same judges, plus the conservative Scalia, said that the Constitution's clause about regulating interstate commerce can be applied to marijuana grown by a person for their own use in treating agonizing diseases.
What I find most interesting is Clarence Thomas's vehement dissent in both cases. He is so often painted as an arch-conservative monster when in fact he is a strict constitutionalist who probably does more work than any other justice to try to interpret the original meaning of the text and the founders' intent. I wonder if these two rulings will in any way boost his standing.
<< Home