<< A Practical Supreme Court | Main | Scheduled Execution in Washington >>


Blog Scan

| 0 Comments
Legalizing Marijuana:  Doug Berman posts links to two recent op-eds calling for the legalization of marijuana and other drugs.  The first piece discussed by Berman was printed in last week's Economist and discusses the United Nation's March 2009 meeting "to set international drug policy for the next decade."  The editorial states that because "[p]rohibition has failed" "the least bad policy is to legalise drugs."  A second, more recent op-ed by Dave Stancliff appeared in Eureka's Times-Standard.  His piece calls to "jumpstart California's sagging economy" by legalizing drugs.  The op-ed discusses California's consideration of Tom Ammiano's AB 390, a bill which would "legalize the possession, sale, cultivation, and other conduct relating to marijuana and its derivatives by persons 21 years of age and older."  The bill would setup a system for its taxation and regulation.  On the issue of legalization Berman comments that while he is "not holding my breath...tough economic times certain make this a better possibility now than probably any other time is my lifetime."

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Victims' Challenge to Gunmaker Immunity:  Hat tip to Howard Bashman at How Appealing for providing a link to Greg Stohr's report on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear victims' challenges to a 2005 law shielding gunmakers from lawsuits that seek to hold them liable for urban violence.  In New York v. Beretta former Mayor Giuliani sought court-ordered changes to industry practices to keep illegal guns out of the city.  Lawson v. Beretta similarly involved nine people who were either injured by gun violence or were representing people killed by assault weapons or machine guns in Washington D.C.  Both cases had been thrown out of lower courts.  According to Stohr, the Obama administration had urged the Court not to challenge the constitutionality of the 2005 Act.  

Comment on Justice Ginsburg's Strickland Dissent:  At Bench Memos, Ed Whalen criticizes Justice Ginsburg's use of judicial dissent as a form of political activism.  In his post, Whalen points to two of the Justice's dissents, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and today's Bartlett v. Strickland, as examples of Justice Ginsburg's political activism.  In her Bartlett dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote: "Today's decision returns the ball to Congress' court.  The Legislature has just cause to clarify beyond debate the appropriate reading of ยง2."  Whalen is upset at her steady use of dissent "to invite Congress to legislate on a matter..." Orin Kerr also posts his thoughts on Volokh Conspiracy. 

Leave a comment