Yeah, I can't understand at all why they would come down against medical marijuana. It's none of government's business, and this nannyism has gotten out of hand.

In other news...the number of reported glaucoma cases plummets.

And Federalism dies.

Justice Thomas' dissent is more-or-less what I expected Scalia to say, and it's a corker:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

I've argued on occasion before that Scalia is widely misunderstood; his judgements are rooted in his legal philosophy, not his personal politics, and whatever you can say about the merits or demerits of originalism, originalism is not merely a pseudonym for "conservatism". Calling Scalia a "consrevative" Justice is therefore inaccurate - he's an originalist Judge, which is precisely what we need more of.

But I have to admit to being thoroughly flummoxed by Raich going this way and turning on Scalia's vote; SCOTUSblog, IIRC, had predicted that this would be a 5-4 extension to Lopez, written by Rehnquist, and instead, we get a Stevens opinion with a Scalia concurrence that baffles me. So maybe I've misunderstood him too, or maybe this is just out of character for him. Still a very disappointing result, but again, a fabulous dissent from Justice Thomas, who is very much under-appreciated, I think.

The silver lining: perhaps people will stop accusing Thomas of being Scalia's mini-me.

perhaps people will stop accusing Thomas of being Scalia's mini-me.

When that happens, I'm going to start looking nervously at the sky for other impending signs of the rapture beginning. I've found the vitriol levelled at Clarence Thomas utterly stupifying, until I read the Thomas Sowell piece you posted last month (in re Janice Rogers Brown), which made an excellent suggestion (echoed, actually, a suggestion previously made by Tammy Bruce in The Death of Right & Wrong) as to why, viz., that the Democrats can't stand to see successfulll black Republicans, as it undercuts the entire basis of their claim to be "the natural home of minorities".

Even a cursory look at Thomas' opinions shows that he has a distinct set of views of his own, and that he is a very capable Justice, whose primary misfortune has been serving at the same time as - and thus in the shadows of - two of the most consequential jurists to sit on that bench.

Kudos to Simon.

Thomas Sowell has commented long on the fact that if the left cannot create an underclass dependent on them for their rights, as defined by the left, not the Constitution, who is going to support them?

As illustrated in a current NY Times series, the encouragement of class warfare, even if it has to be invented, opens the door for the Vanguard Elite. That worked pretty well c. 1917.