Monday, November 29, 2004

Guest Blogging In addition to keeping up the posts here, I'll be one of a select group of guest bloggers at The Agitator, Radley Balko's outstanding blog. There will be some cross-posting as my job will be be covering the Drug War as I guest blog alongside Jim Henley, Jacob Grier and Joshua Clayborn. Radley will drop in from time to time, but he'll be working on some other projects for the next 4-6 weeks. I've already gotten started there and it should be fun. Remember, I'm not cutting back at Drug WarRant, so continue to spend your time here, but drop by The Agitator too. 10:09:00 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Intelligent Debate in the Supreme Court Well, you wouldn't know it from the early press... Gina Holland's AP pieces "Court Questions Possible Abuse of Pot Laws" and "Wary Court considers Medical Marijuana" along with AP's "Justices Appear Hesitant To Endorse Medical Marijuana" would certainly lead you to believe that Barnett faced a serious problem and that Clement had a cake-walk. Reuters came out with a piece that seemed to have sealed the deal: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed reservations on Monday about allowing medical marijuana for sick patients whose doctors have recommended they smoke it for pain. The justices appeared sympathetic to the federal government's argument that it has the power to prosecute or take other action against patients who use home-grown marijuana in states with laws allowing medical use. Some of the pieces would mention a single question of a Justice (out of context and without the answer given) as indication of the Justice's view, when the Supreme Court Justices often probe with their questioning to bring out important points. Of course, reality was a bit more complex than that. Huge thanks are due to Lawrence Sulom's Legal Theory Blog for a complete recap and analysis. Once you read that, you realize that there was a good discussion -- that the Justices were not as stupid as the AP reports would lead you to believe -- and that we've got a barn-burner of a case going on here. I'm going to need to soak it in a little more, but I'm sure I'll comment more on the specifics later. [Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy] Update: Another reaction to the arguments from Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute, who co-authored an amicus brief, is available at the Ashcroft v. Raich Federalism Blog. It's a little more pessimistic overall regarding the degree to which the Justices went after Barnett. Further Update: Marty Lederman at SCOTUS blog has decided to predict a unanimous vote in favor of the federal government. (Since I earlier called unanimous the other direction, at least one of us is likely to be wrong.) 4:59:49 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

Today's the day. Of course, remember that today is simply the oral arguments for Raich v. Ashcroft. We won't have the results probably until July. Again, I'd love to hear from anybody who attends the arguments, and I'll report more tonight. Here are the two questions I hope will be asked of Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement by the Justices: If Congress has the power to regulate this activity, doesn't that mean it has the power to define any activity it wishes as being under federal jursidiction? Can you list any activities that it would not be able to control? How can you say that wholly intrastate non-commercial use of medical marijuana substantially affects interstate commerce in drugs, while the possession of a gun in a school zone does not substantially affect interstate commerce in guns? Or do you suggest we overturn Lopez? This is, in part, where this case hangs. The respondents have given the government several ways to affirm the 9th Circuit decision without even overturning Wickard. However, the government's case is pretty weak in that there's no real way to justify supporting the government's position without making a radical change in Supreme Court case law regarding the commerce clause. 8:13:52 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []