Monday, November 29, 2004

Activist Judges on the Supreme Court?

Hummm...I wonder how the religious right is going to spin these two decisions by the Supreme Court?

Decided not to hear the Mass. Gay Marriage case.


Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in Boston.

Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power."

Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."

Merita Hopkins, a city attorney in Boston, had told justices in court papers that the people who filed the suit have not shown they suffered an injury and could not bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. "Deeply felt interest in the outcome of a case does not constitute an actual injury," she said.

End slice:

Good for them! At least they see that no one really is harmed if two people who love each other decide to get married and then do it.

And they decided to hear the medical Marijuana Case.


Angel Raich tried dozens of prescription medicines to ease the pain of a brain tumor and other illnesses before she took up another drug: pot. The 39-year-old mother of two has the support of her doctor and a California medical marijuana law when she uses a blend of a marijuana variety known as "Haze X" every few hours.

End slice:

If you ask me, I think we aught to legalize it and then tax the hell out of it. It might do the whole country a service to turn the multi-billion dollar Mrijuana illegal industry into a tax earning, share the cost as you go opperation. This would also deflate the expenses needed to conduct the "war on drugs." Well, at least a little bit as we won't have to send in troops to pull shrubs out of our national parks...and no doubt the quality of the product would improve...and legalizing it will spur a whole new cash crop for our farmers...

I really can't think of a downside. If alcohol can be legal, and cigarettes/cigars and the like are legal, why not some good old Mary Jane?

Oh, one after thought - those of you reading this might automatically leap to the assumption that I have smoked some of the stuff myself. Well, to belie that thought, unlike our former President Clinton, I have never inhailed, and never actually took a toke of any kind of substance of the sort. As an avid runner, I don't believe in polluting my lungs for any reason. Never smoked, any kind of drug - legal or not.

No comments: