The long awaited decision arrived this week. I was definitely disappointed, but not very surprised by the decision. I was somewhat surprised by the vote, though. I thought that the more conservative judges would show their true colors and vote against Raich. I thought their states' rights stance was disingenous, that would side with the religious right over states' rights. I was wrong though. Two of the three who sided with Raich were Rhenquist and O'Connor -- two of the most conservative judges. All the so-called "liberal" judges (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens) sided with the fed. The majority opinion they wrote was even more infuriating -- telling cancer sufferers to look to Congress. Their willngness to side with Congressional power over Constitutional law is truly disheartening. I would not be surprised if Raich v. Ashcroft becomes more important historically than Wickard v. Filburn.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
The long awaited decision arrived this week. I was definitely disappointed, but not very surprised by the decision. I was somewhat surprised by the vote, though. I thought that the more conservative judges would show their true colors and vote against Raich. I thought their states' rights stance was disingenous, that would side with the religious right over states' rights. I was wrong though. Two of the three who sided with Raich were Rhenquist and O'Connor -- two of the most conservative judges. All the so-called "liberal" judges (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens) sided with the fed. The majority opinion they wrote was even more infuriating -- telling cancer sufferers to look to Congress. Their willngness to side with Congressional power over Constitutional law is truly disheartening. I would not be surprised if Raich v. Ashcroft becomes more important historically than Wickard v. Filburn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment