Scalia: Federal Drug Laws Were a Mistake

[Verrater]

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/scalia%20full.jpg
Scalia: Federal Drug Laws Were a Mistake
By Conor Friedersdorf

Oct 7 2011, 10:00 AM ET 28

The Supreme Court justice told a Senate panel that the unintended consequence has been lower quality judges.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia isn't a supporter of legalizing drugs. But he does believe that passing federal laws against them has done harm to the U.S. government. "It was a great mistake to put routine drug offenses into the federal courts," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. The Wall Street Journal went on to report Scalia's belief that the laws forced Congress to enlarge the federal court system, and diminished "the elite quality of the federal judiciary."

This isn't a new problem. Chief Justice William Rehnquist complained as far back as 1989 that the war on drugs was overwhelming the federal judiciary. In 1995, Kathleen F. Brickley, an academic, found that "the Federal system is strained to capacity due, in large part, to the government's war on drugs."

Said an nonpartisan immigration nonprofit last year, "Federal prosecutors along the Southwest border with Mexico -- many already strained by the rise in their immigration caseloads -- are facing a new challenge: how to handle a sharp jump in drug cases. Justice Department data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse show that during the first four months of FY 2010 drug cases in this region had surged by almost a third (30 percent) from what they were just 16 months ago and were up by 7 percent over levels at the end of FY 2009."

The federal War on Drugs is diminishing the quality of our federal justice system. As far as I can tell, no one contests that conclusion. It would be one thing to bear that cost in exchange for a policy victory. After decades of failure, however, no one even expects the drug war to be won.

Returning drug policy to the states would be a first step in the right direction.


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/supreme-court-justice-federal-drug-laws-were-a-mistake/246321/


Whoa

[Zap!]

He' an amazing Justice all around.

[pulp8721]

Returning drug policy to the states would be a first step in the right direction

Well...It's a start. Lamar Smith is too cowardly to consider even that measure. Yes, I said he's a coward. He wouldn't even bring up the Paul/Frank bill to the judiciary committee that would've federally decriminalize marijuana.

[jct74]

Video:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/RoleofJ/start/5163/stop/8640

[Verrater]

Video:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/RoleofJ/start/5163/stop/8640

excellent thanks

[LibForestPaul]

He's an elitist ass. But it does work, states handle these lesser cases, feds should handle more grandeur cases. Because backwater state justices are a dime a dozen. I've always <3 Scalia.

[erowe1]

Dear Antonin,
1) I care more about how you rule on cases like Gonzales v. Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) than what you say outside the court.
2) Since when does the rightness of a federal law depend on its effect on the calibre of federal judges?

[Napolitanic Wars]

He's been on a role lately! First assassination, now drug laws. He has said that he believes in the original intent of the founders when interpreting the Constitution. He said "People ask me 'when did you first become interested in originalism?' Like it's some weird thing. Like when did you first start eating human flesh?"

[Paulatized]

Mistake because it backs up the federal court system and consequently results in lower quality judges or because it is unconstitutional for such issues to be dealt with on the federal level?

[Brett85]

Dear Antonin,
1) I care more about how you rule on cases like Gonzales v. Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) than what you say outside the court.
2) Since when does the rightness of a federal law depend on its effect on the calibre of federal judges?

That's what I don't understand. If Scalia actually believes what he said here, why did he rule that the federal government has the authority to ban medical marijuana within a specific state? Is he saying that he regrets how he ruled in this case?

[erowe1]

That's what I don't understand. If Scalia actually believes what he said here, why did he rule that the federal government has the authority to ban medical marijuana within a specific state? Is he saying that he regrets how he ruled in this case?

But notice that nowhere in the OP does he say the federal government doesn't have that authority.

[RonPaulMall]

That's what I don't understand. If Scalia actually believes what he said here, why did he rule that the federal government has the authority to ban medical marijuana within a specific state? Is he saying that he regrets how he ruled in this case?

No. All he's saying is that the policy decision by Congress to make drug cases Federal crimes has resulted in pushing the Federal Judiciary to a size such that quality of judges can no longer be maintained. His point has nothing to do with Constitutionality or legality. He's just saying that in his personal opinion, the decisions Congress made with respect to the drug war weren't prudent. Useful political propaganda for us since Scalia is an icon among Conservatives and they give his personal opinions great weight, but not an indication Scalia will vote our way on the Supreme Court.

[Brett85]

No. All he's saying is that the policy decision by Congress to make drug cases Federal crimes has resulted in pushing the Federal Judiciary to a size such that quality of judges can no longer be maintained. His point has nothing to do with Constitutionality or legality. He's just saying that in his personal opinion, the decisions Congress made with respect to the drug war weren't prudent.

I see that now that I read the article. Thomas seems to be more of an originalist overall than Scalia. He ruled the right way in the Raich case.

[GunnyFreedom]

Amendment 28: The powers granted to the Federal Government in this Constitution to regulate interstate commerce shall not be construed to restrict the rights of the people or the several States to conduct commerce as they see fit, but to impose a positive responsibility for the Federal Government to enable interstate commerce by making it more regular, or easier to participate. The only authority granted in this Constitution to restrict the activities of the several States with regards to the regulation of interstate commerce shall be limited to removing or reducing trade barriers imposed by the several States against one another.

Amendment 29: Operative clauses such as "promote the general welfare" contained in the Preamble to this Constitution and in Article 1 Section 8 clause 1, and "all laws ... necessary and proper" contained in Article 1 Section 8 clause 18, shall not be construed as granting any powers not already specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and shall be understood only as referring to powers that are already otherwise contained herein.

Amendment 30: The Federal Government is not authorized to exercise any powers or prohibitions not specifically enumerated in this Constitution. The Article 6 Supremacy Clause applies only to those powers or prohibitions specifically enumerated in this Constitution.

there.

[pulp8721]

Amendment 28: The powers granted to the Federal Government in this Constitution to regulate interstate commerce shall not be construed to restrict the rights of the people or the several States to conduct commerce as they see fit, but to impose a positive responsibility for the Federal Government to enable interstate commerce by making it more regular, or easier to participate. The only authority granted in this Constitution to restrict the activities of the several States with regards to the regulation of interstate commerce shall be limited to removing or reducing trade barriers imposed by the several States against one another.

Amendment 29: Operative clauses such as "promote the general welfare" contained in the Preamble to this Constitution and in Article 1 Section 8 clause 1, and "all laws ... necessary and proper" contained in Article 1 Section 8 clause 18, shall not be construed as granting any powers not already specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and shall be understood only as referring to powers that are already otherwise contained herein.

Amendment 30: The Federal Government is not authorized to exercise any powers or prohibitions not specifically enumerated in this Constitution. The Article 6 Supremacy Clause applies only to those powers or prohibitions specifically enumerated in this Constitution.

there.

Nice job. One question though, does it have to be 3 amendments, couldn't it be sections of one, like the 14th.