historiblogography

Gonzales v. Raich

The medical marijuana case has been decided by the supreme court. (Orin Kerr blogs on it at Volokh. Maybe -- surely -- Randy Barnett will also post on it.) It was a 6-3 decision, and interesting in the split:

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

Here is a website which can get you up to date on the case and the issues involved. And here is a transcript of the oral argument. There seems to be a lot of laughter in this transcript. Hmm. Marijuana case... laughter...

Example:

JUSTICE STEVENS: Well, that would reduce demand and increase price, it seems to me. It's the other way around.
MR. BARNETT: Well, it would reduce demand and reduce prices, I think. But
JUSTICE STEVENS: If you reduce demand, you reduce prices? Are you sure?
MR. BARNETT: Yes. [Laughter.]
JUSTICE STEVENS: Oh, you're right. You're right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.


And you can get the opinion (Stevens), concurrence (Scalia), and two dissents (O'Conner and Thomas) at the Legal Information Institute.

I fell asleep mid-day yesterday -- and guess what my dream was about? Yes, the supreme court, and more specifically, Justice Stevens. Strangeness. Unmitigated strangeness. I wonder if that dream presaged this case being handed down. I mean, Stevens did write the opinion.

On an unrelated note, see here for a simplistic, early chart representing the interest in deep throat in the blogosphere.

posted by Sameer @ 9:02 AM