SCOTUSblog entry. I'm going back to the original context on how the case is being argued.
Interesting incite on the workings.It seems clear to me that Oregon will win when the Justices vote on Friday, but there is a reasonable chance the case will have to be reargued after Justice O'Connor leaves and is replaced (which is very likely to occur before the case is decided). All the usual caveats apply. The Justices will meet and talk about the case, and one may persuade another. But in high-profile cases like this one (particular one argued after the long summer recess has given them lots of time to think), they have considered the case a great deal by the time they come to argument and tend to show their hands there.The State had four solid votes at the argument -- Justices O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Based on his previous writings, it seems clear to me that Justice Stevens will vote with them as well.
The federal government had two solid votes at the argument -- the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia.
That leaves in play Justices Kennedy and Thomas. AMK said relatively little. In questioning Paul Clement, he described it as a "hard" case, including particularly because it is hard to describe these facts as involving the drug "abuse" contemplated by the statute. (Because this is going to be the principal theory of the putative majority, I bet [without great confidence] that that AMK will vote to affirm.) AMK seemed attentive to the government's concern that there would be a slippery slope towards permitting other exemptions from federal drug regulation. He also suggested that an international convention referring to the judgment of the medical community cut against the federal government's position. In questioning the State's lawyer, AMK said that it seemed that this activity fell "precisely" within the authority to regulate the "dispensing" of drugs.
11 comments:
Rethuglican Pet, LOL!
Fool.
Narcofit,
What you don't comprehend is the fact that the Bible is the law of man. I don't care if the Bible isn't utilized in laws in the US. We'll pay for that as a nation. The Bible applies to man and as Christians we should apply the law of manking to the law of the nation. I've quoted "blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" but you seem to overlook that and convince yourself that it's ok to let our fellow man defy God and kill themselves. You also don't comprehend that Christianity is the only way we'll live in eternal peace. Therefore, your argument that Christianity isn't the prescribed religion of America is totally irrelevant. I don't care about made up religions and it's irrelevant that people are gullible enough to believe other religions. These people are seeking a law that paves the way for their slaughter. You don't comprehend that.
Ah the Rethugican Pet is still making noise.
Your calling me a fool is the ultimate in flattery. Keep raving.
Sanctimonious rot isn't proof of anything. The Bible isn't the law of man. It's the law of those who wish to abide. Or have you missed that the majority of humanity doesn't believe your ChristiFascist ravings?
Those that can only follow dogma prove through their acts and speech that they are incapable of original thought or logic. And this is obvious every time you strike a key.
Stripped of your precious bible you are a hollow shell. But keep raving. It's actually quite entertaining.
Oh, I nearly forgot, I was having too much time laughing at the sophistry from the Rethigcan Pet.
If you're not going to deal with me as you comment in another post, why do you continue to rant?
Nothing better to do?
Not smart enough to follow your own statements?
Ok, you're still proving my point. Some 'relationship' you have with the Lord, right?
And is it Rethuglican or Rethigan? You've said 2 different names, neither of which make sense, lol, but you can't even keep up with yourself.
You like spoof blogs........who's next?
Oh you are so wise and clear oh brave and intelligent Rethugican Pet. I bow to your extreme intellect and perfect spelling.
Keep shining your holy radiance on we poor mortals so that we can find our way to your ChristiFascist ways.
May no lowly mortal spoof your nonsensical rantings or question your lockstep following of dogma.
Blessed Brighid, you are a sense of joy to play with. Keep up that stunning reparte.
http://chaosinmotionwatch.blogspot.com
Such a sad waste. You could've remained intelligent and conversed like a human being, but you have to show your ignorance blasphemy in public.
Good for you Ranting Vet. I hope your time was well spent. Keep up that spoof, the more you post, the more reasonable I look to anyone with 2 neurons to rub together.
There we go. All that name calling makes 41 year olds look awesome.
Heh. Calling a spade a spade does make one look honest.
Where did I call you names? I may've misspelled your alias, but where did I call you a name? Was it when I said fool? Look at how you treat the word of God, how you treat Christians, the rage you have toward us because of your voluntary inferiority and the way you call prayer 'damnation.'
Now you'll understand the reasonging for calling you a fool. Try researching the Bible to find out what a fools is. A fool is someone who acts the way you act toward saving grace. Fool isn't a a word you go around calling everyone. You seem to have a problem with everyone who disagrees with you, you lash out at them, you're rude, you're crude and you have no remorse.
That's antisocial. It's a neurological condition.
Post a Comment