![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
1) Nekkid, no WinFS and now no new CLI, that leaves, what, a couple of prettier icons as the big new stuff in Longhorn?
2) Remember the Patriot Act? Remember being told that it was OK 'cause it was just going to be for a few years and then it would sunset out? I do. Apparently GWB&co. have forgotten about that, and now want to make the single largest attack on US civil rights permanent. Fuckers. Where's my jackboots?
3) The Supreme Court's decision in the Gonzales v Raich case came out on the 6th. For those of you who don't know anything about it, the short version is that Raich was using medical marijuana in California, in full compliance with California state law. DEA raided her house, determined that she was legal under Cal state law, but confiscated her plants and supplies anyway. The SCOTUS has found in the favor of the DEA 4-3.
I think that the dissenting opinions written by O'Connor and Thomas are very important, and show just where the Federal Government is taking us.
First, the conclusion by Thomas, emphasis mine.
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Second, the intro and conclusion by O'Connor, emphasis mine.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS join as to all but Part III, dissenting.
We enforce the "outer limits" of Congress's Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government. One of federalism's chief virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
...
Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulates medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.
2) Remember the Patriot Act? Remember being told that it was OK 'cause it was just going to be for a few years and then it would sunset out? I do. Apparently GWB&co. have forgotten about that, and now want to make the single largest attack on US civil rights permanent. Fuckers. Where's my jackboots?
3) The Supreme Court's decision in the Gonzales v Raich case came out on the 6th. For those of you who don't know anything about it, the short version is that Raich was using medical marijuana in California, in full compliance with California state law. DEA raided her house, determined that she was legal under Cal state law, but confiscated her plants and supplies anyway. The SCOTUS has found in the favor of the DEA 4-3.
I think that the dissenting opinions written by O'Connor and Thomas are very important, and show just where the Federal Government is taking us.
First, the conclusion by Thomas, emphasis mine.
JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Second, the intro and conclusion by O'Connor, emphasis mine.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS join as to all but Part III, dissenting.
We enforce the "outer limits" of Congress's Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government. One of federalism's chief virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
...
Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulates medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.