What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
185 Comments
- UKLooney, on 12/02/2008, -3/+267I'm guessing federal law enforcement officers can still arrest medical marijuana patients and seize their medicine.
- asgardshill, on 12/02/2008, -3/+166The headline here is a bit misleading. The USSC simply refused to grant cert to (hear) this case. The plaintiff now should get the medical marijuana that the Garden Grove PD confiscated from him back now, and that's pretty much it.
Still, good news. City cops shouldn't be put in the position of enforcing federal law, especially when state law differs so widely from it. - enantiodromia, on 12/03/2008, -1/+84"Ok fellas, we need to decide which operation to pursue. James, what do you got?"
'Sir, we have tracked down a major meth lab run by a local MS-13 cell. They are known to have RPGs, a dozen Pit Bulls who they intentionally starve to keep them mean, a .50 belt fed machine gun on the roof, and at least 24 men trained in the jungles of Central America. They are believed to have $100,000 in cash on site. We will need 50 Federal Agents on the ground, a helicopter with a machine gun mounted to the side, and can expect to lose 10% of our men."
"Great James. Todd, what do you have?"
"Sir, we have an 87 year old woman who lives alone, suffers from hearing loss, and is legally blind in one eye. She is known to have up to 1 oz of marijuana in her kitchen at all times. She has 7 obese cats and a walker. She owns her home, her cars, and has a substantial bank account she is too senile to remember about. We will need two men for this operation, and one or both can be rookies."
"Ok. Men. Which one should we hit?" - diggitydoc, on 12/02/2008, -2/+56grandma's stash... easy target
- KyleGoetz, on 12/02/2008, -1/+51Law student interpretation here, so take it with half a grain of salt: SCOTUS cert denials have no precedential value. Thus, the SCOTUS's choice to deny cert has only one effect: the California 4th COA decision still stands. Now, to determine any other precedent set, we only may look at the state appellate court decision, which only has precedent in California, and technically is only binding on the 4th appellate district in California.
Thus, this ruling has absolutely zero effect on, for example, New York. A New York state court could still hold that NY officers have the ability to enforce federal law. This decision only says that IN CALIFORNIA, CA state officers cannot enforce federal drug laws when state drug laws declare a different rule.
To quote Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995) (a SCOTUS case), a cert denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." And to quote Wikipedia's Writ of Certiorari article, "a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created, and that the lower court's decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_certiorari - johndi, on 12/02/2008, -1/+46By not hearing the case they're not really saying anything at all. If you were to read into it the meaning would probably be more like "Local police have no jurisdiction to enforce federal law." While I'll still Digging it as good news I want to point out that more than once has the Supreme Court incorrectly ruled that federal law trumps state law. The only time that is true is when the Constitution grants Congress the authority to make such laws.
- kashk5, on 12/02/2008, -2/+39That's exactly what I was thinking. Sure, local cops won't arrest people for possession of medical marijuana, but we still have to worry about federal agents, particularly DEA agents, doing drug raids within the state.
I suppose we've gotten a feel for how the Supreme Court will handle such situations. It's a step in the direction toward decriminalization. - inactive, on 12/03/2008, -1/+38More importantly, are federal marijuana laws even constitutional? I just don't understand why the federal government has a say - seems to be something that should be a state matter to me.
- TunaFishGangsta, on 12/02/2008, -0/+35Grandma still has a home, a car, and retirement savings.
Just what the Feds need in this ailing economy. - TunaFishGangsta, on 12/02/2008, -0/+34Marijuana is highly illegal under Federal Law. However, in some states, they have ruled that medical Marijuana is legal.
So instead of respecting the state law, local officers simply ignored it and went by the Federal law. I don't believe it resulted in any prosecutions, but they did arrest some people and destroy a lot of weed with this excuse. - chrissku, on 12/02/2008, -1/+32We need the Supreme to rule on Medical Marijuana in a way that alleviates all legal questions on a state & federal level. Only then will we have victory.
- libertao, on 12/02/2008, -5/+34Yes. http://tinyurl.com/62db7x
- adrenaline33, on 12/02/2008, -2/+27Yeah, but this sets a legal precedent in regards to state vs federal marijuana laws. There are several states that are the verge of passing laws that would legalized small amounts of marijuana and this ruling is very important for when that happens.
- bipolarruledout, on 12/03/2008, -1/+24No drug laws are constitutional; that doesn't seem to mean anything however.
- orangester, on 12/02/2008, -4/+24We'll get this legalized, one step at a time. Before I die hopefully.
- twiztidsinz, on 12/03/2008, -1/+20@TunaFishGangsta:
Not to mention that their no-knock raids which not only needlessly endangered the lives of Law Enforcement agents as well as countless innocent people (these raids took place at peoples HOMES with typical disregard of the presences of children) but causes the death of more than a few people who were most likely trying to defend their homes and more important families from an unknown intruder.
The fact that ?some/many/most/all? of these people went unprosecuted coupled with Bush's pardoning of the guy with millions in liquid cocaine should absolutely SCREAM that its time to end the War on Drugs which is only breeding criminals. - ChildeRoland420, on 12/02/2008, -0/+18My only question is how many hundreds of thousands of dollars (of tax payer money) did the city spend trying to defend their overzealous police department?
- JustinHopewell, on 12/03/2008, -0/+18Correction: Ne007...
If they don't have a warrant and enter your home with weapons, yes you can shoot them. Getting away with it, legally or not, is a whole different story. Also, their training with firearms and the fact that there will probably be a team of them if they're raiding leaves your chances of survival pretty slim if you do decide to open fire.
I'm all for standing up for my rights, but firing at trained officers is just asking for it. If the country goes into a revolution and mass chaos ensues, then might be a reasonable time to do that. - darkcthulhu, on 12/02/2008, -0/+17Both, given the opportunity.
- grungegbunny, on 12/02/2008, -8/+24epic win?
- Sol1, on 12/02/2008, -3/+19A decent win, but far from the courts saying that state laws trump federal laws. In most jurisdictions local cops aren't allowed to enforce federal law, though some pick and choose which laws they'll enforce. For example, that same Garden Grove cop would have looked the other way had he pulled over an illegal immigrant citing a long standing rule in LA that cops can't enforce immigration laws because it's federal jurisdiction. They should pick a single stance and stick to it regardless of the issue....
- selfprodigy, on 12/02/2008, -12/+27Maybe all the environmental damage is caused by us cutting down the pot plants. Think about it. It used to grow in massive numbers in every state in the union, and around the world. It produces huge amounts of oxygen for being such a small plant. Maybe we should starting planting them everywhere.
- MrBogard, on 12/03/2008, -2/+17Doesn't anyone read comments before making a comment to make sure they aren't saying something 3 other people have already said?
- analogkid01, on 12/02/2008, -1/+16May as well throw out the 10th amendment if you think that's how things should work.
- oboshoe, on 12/03/2008, -0/+143rd year Truck Driving School student interpetation: KyleGoetz is right on with his analysis. If in the future another COA court rules differently, this will create a situation of split interpetations which could influence a future Supreme Court to grant cert. As president of Truck Drivin' Review, we will be publishing a full review of this decision in the next edition of Convoy.
BobbyRay McClemins,
CW McCall Truck Drivin' School, Class of 2010 - thbemky827, on 12/02/2008, -5/+18theres dozens of rulings like this... they're not gonna listen until executive powers intervene
- WeedCollege, on 12/02/2008, -2/+15Once this brainwashed older generation dies off, or realizes how much it can help them in their older age... then maybe... well, hopefully.
- rald84, on 12/02/2008, -1/+13they already did in 2005, Gonzales v. Raich
Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich - SpaceRibs, on 12/02/2008, -1/+13epic win.
- hierophantus, on 12/03/2008, -0/+12Hint: when you're dead wrong, don't suggest that the correct person "take a ____ class or stfu."
State courts take note of decisions from other jurisdictions ALL THE DAMN TIME. It's called "persuasive authority," as opposed to "mandatory authority."
Furthermore, a Con Law class (conventionally two words, capitalized), in that it deals with the federal Constitution, would have little to say about how state courts run their own show unless and until they run afoul of the federal Constitution, which taking other jurisdictions' opinions as persuasive authority obviously does not.
God, I hate pretend internet lawyers. - JustinHopewell, on 12/03/2008, -2/+13Epic Win is when Marijuana is legal for everyone. This is a small step in the right direction, but I feel ya.
- kashk5, on 12/02/2008, -2/+13Not sure what state you live in, but some have no-knock warrants which allows them to come into your home.
- Monacle, on 08/17/2009, -3/+13Forgive Chachuka - he was a parrot in a past life.
- johndi, on 12/03/2008, -0/+10What you're reading about probably falls under the interstate commerce clause. If so, then Congress has the authority and may regulate it and it would trump state laws. If not then Congress is full of hot air and exceeding their authority. (They do it routinely). I'll give you an example of an Supreme court decision where they blatantly ignored the facts and supported unconstitutional laws. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005) the Supreme Court found that growing and using marijuana in your own home falls under the interstate commerce clause. The dissenting members ridiculed the idea that Congress had such authority.
"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." -Clarence Thomas
I'm not suggesting you ignore unconstitutional laws as it may impair your ability to live outside of a jail cell. However I do heartily suggest you read the Constitution and only vote for people who actually mean it when they swear to uphold it. - KyleGoetz, on 12/02/2008, -0/+9It only sets precedent in California. The SCOTUS denying cert doesn't have any precedential value, so the only precedential value remaining is the Cali 4th COA decision, which only affects CA. In fact, it only affects the 4th COA of CA. This doesn't affect the 1st or anything, let alone another state!
- kaelyiesta, on 12/03/2008, -0/+9So, what should that tell you about drug laws? The answer is that federal government has no business meddling with such things in the first place. It's simple: if it isn't enumerated in the Constitution to grant federal authority on this issue, then it is for the state and it's people to deal with.
- zebstah, on 12/02/2008, -0/+9No. SCOTUS denying cert does NOT set legal precedent. It may signal to other interested parties that an appeal is not worth it at this time unless the facts differ from the denied case, but it is not "legal precedent."
This is not a "ruling." - SSPink, on 12/03/2008, -1/+10@macweirdo42
Short answer: No
Long answer: No, but it doesn't matter. - flannelback, on 12/02/2008, -3/+12Still, from as conservative a supreme court as we have, this is good news.
- mrsteveman1, on 12/03/2008, -0/+9They regulate it by claiming they have the right to control the (non-existent) market for interstate pot sale through the commerce clause.
Never mind the fact that there isn't one, and that banning the drug just completely removes all control they had over it. - EASwanson, on 12/02/2008, -4/+13This is how it should be... If your a local cop state laws > federal laws. So basically if your in California and you got a medical card and you get pulled over with bud in your car and as long as your aren't smoking while driving the local cop cannot seize your medical bud. I love living in California.... Catch up other states...
- sparsely, on 12/03/2008, -1/+10and has been used as medicine in almost every civilization that's existed on this planet.
- JustinHopewell, on 12/03/2008, -0/+9Both my completely drug-free (even alcohol) parents recently agreed with me that pot should probably be legal. There's no "probably" in my opinion, but I was glad to hear it coming from members of the older generation!
- KyleGoetz, on 12/02/2008, -1/+9It's hardly news. The SCOTUS didn't rule on the merits. A denial of cert merely is the SCOTUS saying, "We don't want to think about it." It has zero precedential value. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool or a liar or both.
- dofe, on 12/02/2008, -0/+8Denial of review does not set precedent. Until the SCOTUS affirms the lower court holding, the viability of state medicinal marijuana laws is still unclear.
- JustinHopewell, on 12/03/2008, -1/+9Our environmental damage is caused by far bigger problems than cutting down pot plants, but I'm with you on everything else you said. I don't think you deserve the negative diggs so I'm bumping you up to -1.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -1/+9Originally they got around the illegality by creating the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marijuana_Tax_Ac ...
Basically it was not illegal completely, just illegal without a marijuana tax stamp, which of course you couldn't get without incriminating yourself if you asked for one, so that was ruled unconstitutional.
Then congress in their wisdom came up with The Controlled Substances Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances ...
Of course though, medical marijuana clearly has medicinal purposes so it fails under that category to be a "Schedule I" controlled substance. But they don't care, they like just sticking noncompliants in jail so they don't start getting other people thinking about how they are being controlled. - kashk5, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8Talk about a stupid analogy and completely missing the point. You can't shoot somebody under both federal and state law. The point is that if there were two contradicting laws, then local officials should enforce the local law, not the federal one. Leave enforcement of federal laws to the federal law enforcement.
- allocate, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8Misleading title of the year. The Supreme Court, by definition, said *nothing*.
- robbiedo, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8The ICC has generally been interpreted to trump the 10th Amendment. Personally, I think the Founding Fathers would have been aghast in the wide latitude in the interpretation of the ICC. So much for a strict constructivist interpretation.
Personally, I am waiting for the inevitable law enforcement standoff a consequence of the growing incongruity of state and federal law ( and an over eager Fed) -
Show 51 - 100 of 198 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is