Comments on: Kubby: Federal law DOES NOT trump state laws

By: jway

jway — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:18:46 +0000

The message was not so much that Federal law doesn’t trump State law, but more that local law enforcement shouldn’t be enforcing Federal law.

This is still an amazing victory as it means all of the enforcement of the prohibition falls to Federal law enforcement officers. However it doesn’t mean Marijuana is legal in Cali or the other MMJ states, because federally it’s still illegal.

Federal law does still trump State law, but it’s up to the Feds to enforce their own ineffective and destructive laws without receiving any help from the States.

By: Joe Buchman

Joe Buchman — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:29:34 +0000

There is a message sent by “doing nothing.” One which in effect says “ditto” to the lower court ruling.

Before that there’s more uncertainty about the lower court’s view than after.

By: johncjackson

johncjackson — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:06:18 +0000

I think it’s more like the PROPER thing for the Supremes to do is often nothing. However, the practical results are that most non-libertarians and all state agents take the silence as a sign to keep doing what they are doing. Most people and certainly The State don’t see the positives that many of us do. I mean, this isn’t going to keep government thugs from illegal search and seizure, no knock raids on the wrong house, killing family pets,etc. It may keep sympathetic local governments from terrorizing innocent people, but it won’t keep the Feds from doing what they do. Just about the only Supreme Court decision that will practically do anything is something that explicitly says the Feds need to get lost and that there is not legit Interstate Commerce claim or whatever BS justification.

By: JimDavidson

JimDavidson — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:35:02 +0000

@4 The Supremes can do more good at times by doing nothing.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:56:52 +0000

No problem. First time I’v corrected anytihng you’ve written, you do a GREAT job.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:55:06 +0000

Thanks…didn’t show up here, I checked it after I posted. Dunno what happened.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:53:55 +0000

Paulie,

No, it was like that originally—I edited out the other 6 versions. That’s my job as “editor”!

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:52:47 +0000

Steve D.,,

Kubby emailed me the same thing – not doing that in IE 7 or FF3 – what are you using?

By: richardwinger

richardwinger — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:49:39 +0000

I am very happy the US Supreme Court chose not to hear the California case. But the US Supreme Court, by refusing to hear the case, didn’t decide anything at all. When the US Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, it is remaining silent on the issue.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:44:37 +0000

I dont what you’re talking about Druckenmiller
=D

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:43:12 +0000

*applaudes*

Go Kubby.

By: Steven Druckenmiller

Steven Druckenmiller — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:41:52 +0000

Why is this posted like, six times in a row?