I want the 9th Circuit to have my baby!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why the strawman?

Face it, Wickard ain't going away anytime soon. If the Rhenquist court didn't strike it down when they had the chance, then the SCOTUS never will.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

Would YOU vote to strike down Wickard?

Just curious.

[Berzerker]

But if you read the rest of the opinion, you'll see the court say that growing wheat affects supply and demand. If they grew less (under federal dictate) then they'd have to buy wheat and all sorts of other BS. The court ended up saying intrastate commercial activity also counts as interstate commerce.

And under your prediction, I assume that you as well believe that Wickard will be cited to strike this law down.

I doubt Wickard will be cited since it creates another "logic" problem with pot being illegal in other states. I suspect they will avoid that problem by declaring the FDA (and Congress) to be the arbiter of what medicines we can or cannot use regardless of whether or not there is a legal interstate market. But the SCOTUS ruled that Congress can punish farmers who grow outside of the quota range established by Congress even when the surplus is used for consumption by the farmers themselves. As David points out, the feds literally told farmers they can be punished for eating their own food. Sound like Stalin? Yes, albeit the punishments aren't the same.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Would YOU vote to strike down Wickard?

Of course.

the feds literally told farmers they can be punished for eating their own food.

Which is why I think that case can be used in this case. Like I said before, they can say other states could legalize pot if they vote that way and then it would affect the supply and demand in those states as well. It can easily be massaged in that way.

[Berzerker]

But then Wickard would only qualify as a precedent if Congress wants to actually regulate pot similar to wheat in the Wickard case, i.e., set up quotas to maintain "order" in the market. After all, that was the entire rationale for Wickard and the Agricultural Act, to prevent shortages or over supply of wheat, not to ban it. That's why the SCOTUS will ignore Wickard and simply declare the supreme authority of the FDA and Congress to decide which medicines we get to use regardless of what the states say on the matter. I'm sure there are already precedents (just as bogus as Wickard no doubt) establishing the FDA's authority in that area...

[Imran Siddiqui]

But then Wickard would only qualify as a precedent if Congress wants to actually regulate pot similar to wheat in the Wickard case

Not so! Wickard has been used in precedent even without quotas. Nothing says precedent has to be strictly applied, and it usually isn't.

That's why the SCOTUS will ignore Wickard and simply declare the supreme authority of the FDA and Congress to decide which medicines we get to use regardless of what the states say on the matter.

IMO, they'd still use Wickard, at least as a footnote, to say medicine industry is commerce, even if it is only done intrastate, as Wickard is the first case to say purely intrastate commerce can be regulated under the commerce clause.

[Berzerker]

Not so! Wickard has been used in precedent even without quotas. Nothing says precedent has to be strictly applied, and it usually isn't.

To ban a crop that is legal in only one state? It would be illogical to use Wickard to ban a crop, that decision and the catalyst for it dealt with preventing shortages or over-supply. But whoever said the SCOTUS or Congress was logical, certainly not me. But maybe you can explain how a case ostensibly involving the prevention or reduction of market "disruptions" in supply and demand can be used to justify a massive market disruption engineered by Congress, i.e., a complete ban. I mean, what's the point of citing a precedent when the precedent is not even analogous? They can do whatever they want and they certainly weren't following any precedent when deciding Wickard, they were just making stuff up. But that's how we've gotten so far from the Constitution, one SCOTUS allows the invention of a power and later courts call it "precedent" and declare it more legitimate than the actual Constitution.

IMO, they'd still use Wickard, at least as a footnote, to say medicine industry is commerce, even if it is only done intrastate, as Wickard is the first case to say purely intrastate commerce can be regulated under the commerce clause.

Well, they can cite Wickard but that wouldn't make any sense since there is no legal interstate market. That would be like using the power to regulate interstate commerce to outlaw a product that exists only in one state and that's like Congress outlawing pot in Columbia because Congress has the power to ban it's importation into the USA under the commerce clause.

[Ned]

Well, I haven't read any of these cases being discussed in this thread (links would be helpful) but I think this case was rightly decided. Commerce that subtantially affects interstate commerce can be regulated, IMHO. But commerce that has but a de minimis effect cannot. In this case, the medical marijuana can and probably is grown in the state of California, is consumed by Californians and has no effect outside California.

No decision has to be overruled. However, to the extent that prior cases must be limited, so be it.

This actually is a tremendous blow for States Rights. Bravo 9th Cir. As the Supremes are now heavily in favor of States Rights, they might even go so far as to actually overrule prior cases that went to far.

Let's hope so.

[Kuciwalker]

I think you mis-read my prediction, I'd be surprised if the SCOTUS upholds the ruling, not over rules the 9th which is what I expect. As for guns in a school zone, it doesn't matter if it's a commercial activity. Only that an activity and any activity that "effects" commerce which in turn "automatically" effects interstate commerce falls under Congress' perview. And as Ramo points out, pot is illegal to sell in other states so it doesn't fall under interstate commerce even with the "new" definition.

The problem with that logic, as I stated above, is that as soon as another state legalizes marijuana, it does fall under interstate commerce, and the federal law comes into effect, overriding both state laws.

So, a state that didn't like legal marijuana in California could legalize it in their state, making it illegal in California

[Myrddin]

Why should the legal status in other states affect the status, as commerce is surely a matter of fact irrespective of whether it is legal or not

[Imran Siddiqui]

I mean, what's the point of citing a precedent when the precedent is not even analogous?

Well the precedent can be analogous. Like sky pointed out, as soon as another state legalizes it, then it commerce in more than one states. It would be prospective ruling which the SCOTUS likes to make. They don't normally contain their ruling to the specific facts in front of them.

Well, they can cite Wickard but that wouldn't make any sense since there is no legal interstate market.

Well, as I've said, the precedent has basically been interpreted to mean that any commerce, intrastate or interstate can be regulated by the feds, as long as it is commerce.

[Japher]

@ the 9th circuit court

I do that about once a week, even I agree with them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[qWell, as I've said, the precedent has basically been interpreted to mean that any commerce, intrastate or interstate can be regulated by the feds, as long as it is commerce.

Well, Imran, if that is what the case stands for, the Supreme WILL overrule it for sure. The majority today is in favor of STATES RIGHTS.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Imran, if that is what the case stands for, the Supreme WILL overrule it for sure. The majority today is in favor of STATES RIGHTS.

Um... yeah... Ned. Which is why when they had the chance they didn't overrule that precedent.

Sorry, they aren't going to rule for states' rights this go around. They aren't that states' rights oriented.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well, Imran, if that is what the case stands for, the Supreme WILL overrule it for sure. The majority today is in favor of STATES RIGHTS.

Um... yeah... Ned. Which is why when they had the chance they didn't overrule that precedent.

Sorry, they aren't going to rule for states' rights this go around. They aren't that states' rights oriented.

Imran, it would be nice if you provided links to cases you cite.

What case are you talking about in your message?