Thursday, August 25, 2005
Justice John Paul Stevens Is Guilty
In an extremely unusual speech delivered by a sitting Supreme Court Judge, John Paul Stevens says that if he were a legislator he would have sided on the correct side in the recent eminent domain and medical marijuana cases. However, as a judge he had a duty to vote the other way:
PermaLink | 6:03 AM |
|
In one, the eminent domain case that became the term's most controversial decision, he said that his majority opinion that upheld the government's "taking" of private homes for a commercial development in New London, Conn., brought about a result "entirely divorced from my judgment concerning the wisdom of the program" that was under constitutional attack.The story, as reported by Linda Greenhouse, makes me want to call in sick to work today. Perhaps he could have worked out his own internal logical contradictions before joining the Court 27 years ago.
Justice Stevens said he also regretted having to rule in favor of the federal government's ability to enforce its narcotics laws and thus trump California's medical marijuana initiative. "I have no hesitation in telling you that I agree with the policy choice made by the millions of California voters," he said. But given the broader stakes for the power of Congress to regulate commerce, he added, "our duty to uphold the application of the federal statute was pellucidly clear."
PermaLink | 6:03 AM |
| 
