9th Circuit Court

[Peter_Puget]

I believe the 9th holds the record for most decisions overturned by the Supreme Court (at least in recent history. I use to think it was because it was populated by extreme lefties. Now I realize that their leftiness is but an expression of their stupidity.... decision

[Seahawks]

I believe the 9th holds the record for most decisions overturned by the Supreme Court (at least in recent history. I use to think it was because it was populated by extreme lefties. Now I realize that their leftiness is but an expression of their stupidity.... decision

 

I think she has smoked too much green stuff if she thinks it keeping her alive. Hell the article read "Dying Woman"

Now I would agree I probably makes her feel better while dying.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Seahawks

[AlpineK]

So you want everybody to be positive and ban negativeness by your definition.

[Peter_Puget]

If it maintains her appetite it can certainly help keep her alive longer than if she didn’t smoke/eat it.

[archenemy]

I have a huge problem with this. The war on drugs bullshit is horrifying in its reach. It doesn't do what it's supposed to and innocent people suffer.

I've posted here before about how I worked in an old farts' home three years while going to college. I love old people--they rock. They are tough--some of these old bastards and bastardettes were actual homesteaders (this was in Idaho). So here they come to live out the last years of thier lives and some of them were very much in pain. The fucking docs wouldn't give them anything without the biggest battle (a paperwork battle that we CNAs and the RNs had to wage every day). It angered me so bad I still get flushed in the cheek when I think about it. The arrogance of people to believe they can make decisions like this for other people--people who are suffering. NO ONE should suffer unnecesarily in this weathy country. NO ONE should be denied comfort in their dying years. IT IS BULLSHIT!!!

[archenemy]

ow I am mad.

[StevenSeagal]

Well, at least we can all feel safer knowing this druggie will be behind bars.

[archenemy]

I served as an ombudsman later to fight for this very issue. Since the laws around medicaid have changed so drastically (as well as there being different pt laws in WA than in ID) I dont do this anymore. Also, it wears me out b/c I get so fucking mad I just can't function.

 

Just had to get that out--don't know why.

 

Please return to your normal program.

[Off_White]

Peter, did I misread the article? In this case I believe the 9th is kowtowing to a previous decision by the Supremes, not making a decision that will be overturned.

 

The decision certainly sucks though, I agree with Arch's assessment. War on Drugs paranoia has tainted the whole pain relief debate, coupled with bizarre puritan notions of suffering being good for the soul.

[archenemy]

My understanding is that the court did allow her to have her medicine.

 

I never put together the Puritan angle--good insight!

[Winter]

Peter, you are confused here. The 9th originally ruled in favor of medical marijuana users and ruled that the feds can't enforce against those users. The Supremes overruled the 9th on that legal issue, claiming the feds were within their discretion to consider marijuana a controlled substance despite the states' decision to consider it medication.

 

The 9th appears, in this opinion, to be conforming to the opinion that the Supreme Court issued. How exactly is that stupid by the Ninth Circuit? The decision sucks, but it appears the Ninth is doing exactly what you want it to do - issue opinions that will not be overturned by the Supreme Court.

[Peter_Puget]

The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.

 

Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that marijuana should be allowed if it is the only viable option to keep a patient alive.

 

[minx]

well we certainly want anyone to demonstrate a positive medical use for a substance that so many folks are gung ho to keep illegal, now would we???

[archenemy]

Peter, you are confused here. The 9th originally ruled in favor of medical marijuana users and ruled that the feds can't enforce against those users. The Supremes overruled the 9th on that legal issue, claiming the feds were within their discretion to consider marijuana a controlled substance despite the states' decision to consider it medication.

 

The 9th appears, in this opinion, to be conforming to the opinion that the Supreme Court issued. How exactly is that stupid by the Ninth Circuit? The decision sucks, but it appears the Ninth is doing exactly what you want it to do - issue opinions that will not be overturned by the Supreme Court.

I am a bit confused too. I thought opinions were formal "write-ups" (pardon my layman's terms) that were not subject to being ruled on. I thought bills and stuff like that (more law-idiot speak) were the only things that could be overruled.

[archenemy]

well we certainly want anyone to demonstrate a positive medical use for a substance that so many folks are gung ho to keep illegal, now would we???

You mean like Mushrooms?

[Winter]

The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.

 

Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that marijuana should be allowed if it is the only viable option to keep a patient alive.

 

Peter, what's your point? Help me understand what your issue is. Your reference to a quotation doesn't help.

 

Arch - an "opinion" is the decision that a court issues. Courts issue decisions or opinions on all sorts of issues - legality of statutes, constitutionality of criminal prosecutions, etc etc. The decisions or opinions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can be overruled (aka reversed) by the Supreme Court.

[Peter_Puget]

Winter - I believe the quote indicates that the appeals court was evaluating a different argument this time. This specific argument was not ruled on earlier.

[archenemy]

 

Arch - an "opinion" is the decision that a court issues. Courts issue decisions or opinions on all sorts of issues - legality of statutes, constitutionality of criminal prosecutions, etc etc. The decisions or opinions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can be overruled (aka reversed) by the Supreme Court.

Ah, thanks!

[Winter]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/630C41C84B670F308825729D007E5429/$file/0315481.pdf?openelement

 

Peter, there's the link to the opinion. Read it and then let me know which part you disagree with.

 

I jumped in, because I take issue with your rash characterization of the Ninth Circuit as "stupid." I practice in front of the 9th on a semi-regular basis and have yet to come before a stupid judge. There MAY be some that are ideologically or politically motivated (on both sides of the issues), but none of them are stupid to say the least. Your accusations are based on nothing more than your own political predispositions, and I think you should show a bit more respect to the judges and the judicial system.

 

'Nuff said.

[Peter_Puget]

Winter -

 

To me it is simply wrong that she cannot smoke pot to extend her life and increase the enjoyment of her last few years. That the 9th Circuit Court chose to make so many decisions based on there poltical "predipositions" and cannot see the injustice in this case is beyond me.

 

I guess you are in agreement with me that they are the leader in opinions overturned. Some of the Supreme Court's opinions have been rather scolding if I recall correctly. I do agree that stupid is not be the best word to use. They certainly are leaders in applying their own predispositions to their judgements and have been more than willing to push political boundries when it was almost certain that they would be overturned yet here they balk. Lame.

 

By brazenly pushing their political motivations they do help to reduce the public's respect for the judicial system - that I think is short sighted and can be considered stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

[Winter]

Peter -

 

So I take it you have not read the opinion and/or do not understand the rule of law. Courts do not issue rulings based on your sense of right and wrong. They issue rulings based on the law. Read the opinion and let me know if they got the law wrong, and if they did get the law wrong how the political predisposition of the judges interfered with their legal reasoning. Perhaps they should have ignored the law? I would expect in that case you would label them acitivist judges ... unless you didn't like the law that they ignored.

 

You make a bunch of unsupported conclusory generalizations about the Ninth Circuit and its jurisprudence. Those unsupported generalizations are the same that have been made by political conservatives for years. Quit sparying political bullshit, read the opinion and put forth a reasoned justification for alleging that the judge's liberal political views interfered in their duty to interpret and apply the rule of law. In the absence of that analysis, you are no better than the judge's you criticize, because you base your analysis of their work on nothing more than the rehtoric that has been used to advance the poitical agenda of the conservative right.

[foraker]

For a minute there, I thought we were witnessing The Return of Sheaf_Stout....

[archenemy]

Peter -

 

So I take it you have not read the opinion and/or do not understand the rule of law. Courts do not issue rulings based on your sense of right and wrong. They issue rulings based on the law. Read the opinion and let me know if they got the law wrong, and if they did get the law wrong how the political predisposition of the judges interfered with their legal reasoning. Perhaps they should have ignored the law? I would expect in that case you would label them acitivist judges ... unless you didn't like the law that they ignored.

 

You make a bunch of unsupported conclusory generalizations about the Ninth Circuit and its jurisprudence. Those unsupported generalizations are the same that have been made by political conservatives for years. Quit sparying political bullshit, read the opinion and put forth a reasoned justification for alleging that the judge's liberal political views interfered in their duty to interpret and apply the rule of law. In the absence of that analysis, you are no better than the judge's you criticize, because you base your analysis of their work on nothing more than the rehtoric that has been used to advance the poitical agenda of the conservative right.

Well said.

[Peter_Puget]

Winter -

 

One of my points was that they have been acticvits judges and I am surprised they aren't now.

 

I am not a lawyer but as a citizen I can read that opinion and call BS on it. I would like to hear other cc.comers opinions on this. No one is arguing that the pot is helping to extend her life or that it is not relieveing her pain. Now it seems to me that if we as citizens cannot offer valid opinions on such things in non-legal language we have a fundamentally flawed democracy. Some things are common sense. Given life,liberty and all.

 

Winter could a decision been made that to not let her smoke pot would be an unconscionable injustice?

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

I do wonder if I am incorrect on the over turn statistic. What is the truth? Is my unsupported assertion right or wrong?