US Supreme Court Ruling Could End Legal Marijuana Sales

[bearkat42]

http://hightimes.com/read/us-supreme-court-ruling-could-end-legal-marijuana-sales

Although the Obama Administration advised the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 not to waste any time entertaining a lawsuit brought forth by Oklahoma and Nebraska that suggests Colorado’s legal marijuana market is causing “irreparable injury” due to an influx of drug trafficking into their communities, the nation’s highest court will discuss on Friday whether to pick up the case—creating the potential for the legal cannabis industry to be shutdown.

 

[Not GOP]

Those states have no business interfering with Colorado law.

 

[doublejj]

Scalia would have been the deciding vote against it.......Whew!....dodged a bullet on that one

 

[desert dude]

Scalia would have been the deciding vote against it.......Whew!....dodged a bullet on that one

You shouldn't speak ill of the dead.

 

[Not GOP]

Protest Obama at the Thousand Stoner March

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/bill-maher-inspires-plan-for-massive-pot-smoking-protest-at-white-house

 

[OddBall1st]

http://hightimes.com/read/us-supreme-court-ruling-could-end-legal-marijuana-sales

Although the Obama Administration advised the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 not to waste any time entertaining a lawsuit brought forth by Oklahoma and Nebraska that suggests Colorado’s legal marijuana market is causing “irreparable injury” due to an influx of drug trafficking into their communities, the nation’s highest court will discuss on Friday whether to pick up the case—creating the potential for the legal cannabis industry to be shutdown.

There are four other states with significantly larger boarders and one with the smallest,.. Whoever is suing is corrupt.

 

[bearkat42]

You shouldn't speak ill of the dead.

Why not? Death doesn't change the fact that he was a steaming pile of shit.

 

[Rob Roy]

 

[Rob Roy]

Those states have no business interfering with Colorado law.

...and States have no business fucking with individual people.

 

[rkymtnman]

OK and NE need to worry about their huge meth problems and not some weed influx from CO.

CO should sue those 2 states for the influx of toothless, uneducated trailer trash heading west.

 

[Rrog]

Scalia is much more fun dead

 

[ThickStemz]

Scalia would have been the deciding vote against it.......Whew!....dodged a bullet on that one

I am as pro marijuana as you can get. But the court isn't there to change policy, they're there to judge the law. The only place marijuana laws can be changed is through the legislature, at the federal level. I wouldn't anticipate this case coming out in favor of legal marijuana states if it ever gets to the SCOTUS. The only hope is that they decide not to hear it.

Any Supreme Court Justice that votes to uphold marijuana should be taken out and shot. Not because they favored marijuana, but because they would be usurping the power of congress and deciding what the law ought to be. This would be a terribly tough law for them to not squash for two simple reasons.

First it is because it is illegal. Under federal law marijuana is illegal and nothing has changed that.

Second, the wide sweeping powers the commerce clause has been used for in the past gives them all the precedent they need to say that Colorado's laws are interfering with Neb and Okla and this is commerce that is going over state lines.

Any judge that votes for their preferred policy instead of the law is not a judge but instead is a tyrant.

 

[Fogdog]

I am as pro marijuana as you can get. But the court isn't there to change policy, they're there to judge the law. The only place marijuana laws can be changed is through the legislature, at the federal level. I wouldn't anticipate this case coming out in favor of legal marijuana states if it ever gets to the SCOTUS. The only hope is that they decide not to hear it.

Any Supreme Court Justice that votes to uphold marijuana should be taken out and shot. Not because they favored marijuana, but because they would be usurping the power of congress and deciding what the law ought to be. This would be a terribly tough law for them to not squash for two simple reasons.

First it is because it is illegal. Under federal law marijuana is illegal and nothing has changed that.

Second, the wide sweeping powers the commerce clause has been used for in the past gives them all the precedent they need to say that Colorado's laws are interfering with Neb and Okla and this is commerce that is going over state lines.

Any judge that votes for their preferred policy instead of the law is not a judge but instead is a tyrant.

The legal issue is whether or not one state can object to the actions of individuals in another state. Its not about upholding any state's marijuana laws. So, that bit about "tyrant" is kind of stupid. Here is the pertinent paragraph:

"However, last year, the gatekeeper to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., filed a briefing intended to persuade the justices against hearing the lawsuit. He argued that the case should be rejected because the dispute is not “an appropriate case for the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction.” At its core, the briefing advised the court to dismiss the case, since the criminal actions outlined in the complaint are being committed by individuals and not by the State of Colorado. "

 

[Padawanbater2]

I am as pro marijuana as you can get. But the court isn't there to change policy, they're there to judge the law. The only place marijuana laws can be changed is through the legislature, at the federal level. I wouldn't anticipate this case coming out in favor of legal marijuana states if it ever gets to the SCOTUS. The only hope is that they decide not to hear it.

Any Supreme Court Justice that votes to uphold marijuana should be taken out and shot. Not because they favored marijuana, but because they would be usurping the power of congress and deciding what the law ought to be. This would be a terribly tough law for them to not squash for two simple reasons.

First it is because it is illegal. Under federal law marijuana is illegal and nothing has changed that.

Second, the wide sweeping powers the commerce clause has been used for in the past gives them all the precedent they need to say that Colorado's laws are interfering with Neb and Okla and this is commerce that is going over state lines.

Any judge that votes for their preferred policy instead of the law is not a judge but instead is a tyrant.

Think about what you're saying...

Replace marijuana with interracial marriage

"I am as pro interracial marriage as you can get. But the court isn't there to change policy, they're there to judge the law. The only place interracial marriage laws can be changed is through the legislature, at the federal level. I wouldn't anticipate this case coming out in favor of legal interracial marriage states if it ever gets to the SCOTUS. The only hope is that they decide not to hear it.

Any Supreme Court Justice that votes to uphold interracial marriage should be taken out and shot. Not because they favored interracial marriage, but because they would be usurping the power of congress and deciding what the law ought to be. This would be a terribly tough law for them to not squash for two simple reasons.

First it is because it is illegal. Under federal law interracial marriage is illegal and nothing has changed that.

Second, the wide sweeping powers the commerce clause has been used for in the past gives them all the precedent they need to say that Colorado's laws are interfering with Neb and Okla and this is commerce that is going over state lines.

Any judge that votes for their preferred policy instead of the law is not a judge but instead is a tyrant."

...

Now how does it sound to you?

 

[ttystikk]

...

Now how does it sound to you?

 

[ThickStemz]

The legal issue is whether or not one state can object to the actions of individuals in another state. Its not about upholding any state's marijuana laws. So, that bit about "tyrant" is kind of stupid. Here is the pertinent paragraph:

"However, last year, the gatekeeper to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., filed a briefing intended to persuade the justices against hearing the lawsuit. He argued that the case should be rejected because the dispute is not “an appropriate case for the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction.” At its core, the briefing advised the court to dismiss the case, since the criminal actions outlined in the complaint are being committed by individuals and not by the State of Colorado. "

If you don't think they won't pull the interstate commerce clause out of their hat you're fooling yourself.

The law upholds the law. I doubt even the seemingly liberal justices will want to tare down the establishment.

The commerce clause is a blank check they've granted themselves to do almost as they please.

 

[ThickStemz]

Think about what you're saying...

Replace marijuana with interracial marriage

"I am as pro interracial marriage as you can get. But the court isn't there to change policy, they're there to judge the law. The only place interracial marriage laws can be changed is through the legislature, at the federal level. I wouldn't anticipate this case coming out in favor of legal interracial marriage states if it ever gets to the SCOTUS. The only hope is that they decide not to hear it.

Any Supreme Court Justice that votes to uphold interracial marriage should be taken out and shot. Not because they favored interracial marriage, but because they would be usurping the power of congress and deciding what the law ought to be. This would be a terribly tough law for them to not squash for two simple reasons.

First it is because it is illegal. Under federal law interracial marriage is illegal and nothing has changed that.

Second, the wide sweeping powers the commerce clause has been used for in the past gives them all the precedent they need to say that Colorado's laws are interfering with Neb and Okla and this is commerce that is going over state lines.

Any judge that votes for their preferred policy instead of the law is not a judge but instead is a tyrant."

...

Now how does it sound to you?

I see what you did there and you make it sound stupid. However your analogy doesn't hold.

With interracial marriage it's two consenting adults.

With legal weed in one state increasing the supply in others it is the free people of one state increasing the burden on the free people of another state.

They aren't the same thing. Legal weed in Colo makes it harder to keep weed out of other states and is a violation of that states ability to keep it out... that'll be close to their argument.

 

[ArcticOrange]

I am as pro marijuana as you can get. But the court isn't there to change policy, they're there to judge the law. The only place marijuana laws can be changed is through the legislature, at the federal level. I wouldn't anticipate this case coming out in favor of legal marijuana states if it ever gets to the SCOTUS. The only hope is that they decide not to hear it.

Any Supreme Court Justice that votes to uphold marijuana should be taken out and shot. Not because they favored marijuana, but because they would be usurping the power of congress and deciding what the law ought to be. This would be a terribly tough law for them to not squash for two simple reasons.

First it is because it is illegal. Under federal law marijuana is illegal and nothing has changed that.

Second, the wide sweeping powers the commerce clause has been used for in the past gives them all the precedent they need to say that Colorado's laws are interfering with Neb and Okla and this is commerce that is going over state lines.

Any judge that votes for their preferred policy instead of the law is not a judge but instead is a tyrant.

I beg to differ, i think rescheduling could be achieved in court. I agree with the overall argument but interpretation of the law sets precedent effectively changing law. Couldnt fully legalize per se but re schedule definitely.

 

[Rrog]

I don't miss the corpulent Scalia. Just sayin.

Being reminded again that he's dead just brightened my day.

 

[Rob Roy]

I see what you did there and you make it sound stupid. However your analogy doesn't hold.

With interracial marriage it's two consenting adults.

With legal weed in one state increasing the supply in others it is the free people of one state increasing the burden on the free people of another state.

They aren't the same thing. Legal weed in Colo makes it harder to keep weed out of other states and is a violation of that states ability to keep it out... that'll be close to their argument.

Except any person subject to the edicts of any kind of a state which gains its power thru coercion exercised upon that person, cannot, by definition, be a free person.





BTW- I agree with you that the "authorities" could point to their self granted power and use some kind of commerce clause magic to rationalize their actions.