Comments on: When liberals are conservative http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/01/18/when-liberals-are-conservative/ Ideas about travel and everything else, collected while traveling the world Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:53:13 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: RjZ http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/01/18/when-liberals-are-conservative/comment-page-1/#comment-180 RjZ Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:44:08 +0000 http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/01/18/when-liberals-are-conservative/#comment-180 Reason Foundation makes a <a href="http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060125.shtml" rel="nofollow">better case</a> than I. Despite what Tim said about what the decision was about, I am obviously not the only one who noticed the conservatives, of all people, were the ones over stepping their bounds. Reason Foundation makes a better case than I. Despite what Tim said about what the decision was about, I am obviously not the only one who noticed the conservatives, of all people, were the ones over stepping their bounds.

]]> By: Tim Rohrer http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/01/18/when-liberals-are-conservative/comment-page-1/#comment-173 Tim Rohrer Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:36:34 +0000 http://rjz.verminbrewing.com/2006/01/18/when-liberals-are-conservative/#comment-173 Ron I think you clearly haven't read the decision in this case. It was not decided on federalist grounds, or anything to do with states' rights, but rather narrowly on the wording of the law governing controlled substance regulations. All the court said was that the Federal Controlled Substance Act did not give the attorney general the right to regulate doctor patient drug relationships. It left open the possibility that the act could be rewritten, and didn't really touch the states' rights issue or other constitutional issues at all. Interestingly, being able to dodge such issues is probably what let Justice Stevens (in all likelihood) craft a coalition that allowed the liberals and moderates on the court to coalesce in their decision. Several other states are now considering Oregon-like laws: California, Michigan, Washington and Vermont are among those most often named. This issue will return to the court at some point. But for the moment, the decision seems safe. Congress won't touch it--the memory of getting their hand slapped after meddling in the Terri Schiavo case is too fresh. That could change after the 2006 election if the Republicans return a strong majority in both houses of congress, however. In other supreme court news, read about eminent domain activists trying to use the eminent domain for economic gain decision to take Justice Souter's property...funny! http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0601220408jan22,1,20630.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed t Ron

I think you clearly haven’t read the decision in this case. It was not decided on federalist grounds, or anything to do with states’ rights, but rather narrowly on the wording of the law governing controlled substance regulations. All the court said was that the Federal Controlled Substance Act did not give the attorney general the right to regulate doctor patient drug relationships. It left open the possibility that the act could be rewritten, and didn’t really touch the states’ rights issue or other constitutional issues at all. Interestingly, being able to dodge such issues is probably what let Justice Stevens (in all likelihood) craft a coalition that allowed the liberals and moderates on the court to coalesce in their decision.

Several other states are now considering Oregon-like laws: California, Michigan, Washington and Vermont are among those most often named. This issue will return to the court at some point. But for the moment, the decision seems safe. Congress won’t touch it–the memory of getting their hand slapped after meddling in the Terri Schiavo case is too fresh. That could change after the 2006 election if the Republicans return a strong majority in both houses of congress, however.

In other supreme court news, read about eminent domain activists trying to use the eminent domain for economic gain decision to take Justice Souter’s property…funny!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0601220408jan22,1,20630.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

t

]]>