Who's High?
It almost doesn't bear repeating, but a lot of people (blue or red states) don't seem to get it, so here goes: Most conservatives on a national level are hypocrites, including the Supreme Court.
This is a states-rights Court, remember, and supposedly believes that the individual states have authority to conduct their own business in areas for which the Constitution does not give authority to the national government. In truth, it's now clear, by "states' rights" the conservatives on this Court mean "the right of the states to govern themselves except when they try to do something conservatives don't like."
For instance, if a state passes a law giving its doctors the right to prescribe marijuana to their patients for the relief of pain or nausea in diseases like cancer or AIDS, you'd think the states-rights Court would say "Go for it, boys," wouldn't you? Nope.
They couch their decision as a matter of Congressional authority over commerce. That is, their argument says that the states may not legalize marijuana for any reason at all because such legalization falls under the heading of commerce, which is Congress' bailiwick and not a matter for the states to decide.
Let me get this straight - the medical use of marijuana is a matter of commerce. Right.
But then again, for all the conservative shouting about states' rights, this Court has interfered with the states quite often, remember?
I'm not much of a states-righter myself, although I've come to realize that the national government does take too much authority to itself. The memory of civil rights abuses in the South is too fresh for me to want the states to have too much decision-making power (remember, some Southern states denied basic human and civil rights to their black citizens as a matter of states rights, saying "We get to discriminate against some of our people if we want to!"). My point is not that states' rights is a valid or invalid policy - my point is that conservatives only believe in it when it's convenient. If the states want to teach bad science in the classroom, conservatives believe in states' rights - if the states want to give chemotherapy patients marijuana so they can keep their food down, suddenly conservatives don't believe in states' rights.
All of which begs the question; the Supreme Court doesn't let anyone observe its deliberations - what do you suppose they're smoking in there?
Benshlomo says, Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette.
This is a states-rights Court, remember, and supposedly believes that the individual states have authority to conduct their own business in areas for which the Constitution does not give authority to the national government. In truth, it's now clear, by "states' rights" the conservatives on this Court mean "the right of the states to govern themselves except when they try to do something conservatives don't like."
For instance, if a state passes a law giving its doctors the right to prescribe marijuana to their patients for the relief of pain or nausea in diseases like cancer or AIDS, you'd think the states-rights Court would say "Go for it, boys," wouldn't you? Nope.
They couch their decision as a matter of Congressional authority over commerce. That is, their argument says that the states may not legalize marijuana for any reason at all because such legalization falls under the heading of commerce, which is Congress' bailiwick and not a matter for the states to decide.
Let me get this straight - the medical use of marijuana is a matter of commerce. Right.
But then again, for all the conservative shouting about states' rights, this Court has interfered with the states quite often, remember?
I'm not much of a states-righter myself, although I've come to realize that the national government does take too much authority to itself. The memory of civil rights abuses in the South is too fresh for me to want the states to have too much decision-making power (remember, some Southern states denied basic human and civil rights to their black citizens as a matter of states rights, saying "We get to discriminate against some of our people if we want to!"). My point is not that states' rights is a valid or invalid policy - my point is that conservatives only believe in it when it's convenient. If the states want to teach bad science in the classroom, conservatives believe in states' rights - if the states want to give chemotherapy patients marijuana so they can keep their food down, suddenly conservatives don't believe in states' rights.
All of which begs the question; the Supreme Court doesn't let anyone observe its deliberations - what do you suppose they're smoking in there?
Benshlomo says, Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette.
posted by benshlomo at 4:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home