Says here that Jeff Sessions wins confirmation as Attorney General with a bi-partisan vote of 57-43 (or 56-43 if Sen. Heitkamp (D-ND) has left the Senate to become Secretary of Agriculture and has not been replaced).
Also says here that the confirmation takes place within days of President Trump's inaugeration.
Any takers?
I'll take it! I offer a slightly used ham and cheese sandwich on Sessions' favorite bread: Jewish Rye.
Can you predict, Bill, whether Sessions will be asked about federal marijuana enforcement during his hearings? Can you predict what he might say if/when asked?
Also, do you have a SCOTUS nomination prediction? Frank Luntz this morning suggested that a second opening is likely coming soon. Do you have any inside intel on that front? Is Justice Kennedy and/or Justice Thomas talking serious to anyone about moving on?
I appreciate the offer but must decline. I already indicted the ham and cheese sandwich, and offered the cheese a good deal to flip on the ham. As we all know, ham sandwiches just don't do all that well in the prosecution business.
I would be surprised if a question were not asked about federal pot enforcement. I would also be surprised if Sen. Sessions takes a position to the left of AG Loretta Lynch, who said at her own confirmation hearing (in response to a question from Sessions) that she OPPOSES legalization of pot. I know her opposition was a real downer to the legalization lobby, but, hey, sometimes life is tough.
If you're waiting for Jeff Sessions to get to the LEFT of Loretta Lynch on drugs, no less, I believe you'll be waiting a long time.
I am assuming Sessions will be to the right of the past two AGs, both of whom allowed state MJ reform laws to operate without excessive federal interference.
But I am not sure what "to the right" means in this setting: does it mean significantly more federal interference in state criminal justice systems? Does it mean clamping down on an industry producing thousands of jobs and tens of millions of state tax dollars in many states? I have generally associated "the right" with less federal interference in state laws and markets, but I wonder if it means something different in this setting. Ergo my questions and interest in your perspective/prediction.
Maybe I can reformulate the question so you can answer more effectively: What do you want Sessions to say if/when a Senator were to ask if he would be eager to use the federal Department of Justice shut down medical and/or recreational marijuana businesses operating in compliance with new state laws?
Bill, I also think Sen. Sessions will be confirmed easily, but I will take your bet on the "within days," meaning January 27 or earlier. I don't think the Senate will move that fast.
The stakes are that the loser buys a beer next time we meet in person.
That's a safe bet for me, as I would gladly buy you a beer in any case.
Well, phooey, Doug, you never take my bets and just ask more (diversionary???) questions. Hey, look, I'm not a chaired professor. I'm just some hayseed out in the sticks in Virginia. I could use the money!
Still and all, being in a chipper mood these days as I watch the NYT's head explode hour-by-hour, I'll address your concerns, although I can't give you much help so early on in the game.
My personal view, anchored in the Supremacy Clause, is that federal law trumps inconsistent state law, a 200 year-old fact states might want to bear in mind. When you knowingly violate federal law, you assume the risk. This was true of Mississippi in 1967 and it's true of Washington fifty years later. Assuming the risk means assuming the risk.
Far be it from a has-been like me to suppose what the incoming Attorney General should say. If I were asked the question you pose, however, I would say exactly what I wrote in the preceding paragraph. If you want to flout federal law, you can make that decision. You might get away with it (many do), and you might not.
As I keep saying and you keep not hearing, I don't care that much about pot. We got terrorists, Medicare fraudsters, illegal immigrant rapists, meth peddlers, defense bar hero-cum-racist-butcher Dylann Roof and lots more to worry about. That is where my primary attention will be.
Kent --
We're on! I think you just became the first person in cyberspace to take a bet of mine.
Bill, I hope AG Sessions shares your apparent view that the feds should not care that much about state marijuana reforms because there are much bigger federal priorities. I sense this view was what drove the policies of AG Holder and AG Lynch, and I will be very pleased if AG Sessions continues that tradition.
As for making bets, I think betting on important real life matters is a big gauche and I have always feared that betting inter-state and on-line in a federal criminal offense. I suppose I should assume, because of your history as a federal prosecutor, that you know such online betting as your propose is kosher. But I try not to take any chances when it comes to violating federal law, even if I am being egged on by a former federal prosecutor.
P.S. I am still sorry I did not take your offered $500 bet on the fate of the Weinstein opinion in US v. RV. But, with the benefit of hindsight, I trust you are not sorry about that one.
Geez, could I have more typos?
"I try not to take any chances when it comes to violating federal law..."
I trust you urge this same prudent attitude on the state pot officials who violate federal pot prohibitions???
Just joking!
P.S. I wouldn't be so sure of the US v. RV bet. My wager was that the USAO would seek to appeal. That could well have been the case, but the appeal got nixed by the Solicitor General's Office, which has the final say.
I tell all my students and clients interested in the marijuana industry that they risk federal prosecution every day they work in the industry.
Indeed, Bill, I tell my students who take my marijuana seminar at OSU that we all might be subject to federal indictment for participating in a conspiracy to violate the CSA. But I also tell my students that I am good friends with a former federal prosecutor/DEA counsel who is now a law prof who might be willing to help represent us if we were federal indicted simply for trying to learn evolving state marijuana laws.
If talking with students about pot law were the way to prison, the main question you and I would both have to figure out is which of us gets the top bunk.