July 08, 2005
More Comments About Raich
Finally . . . an accurate, and humorous, media analysis of the Raich opinion. Check out the June 27, 2005 edition of The New Yorker ("The Talk Of The Town," p. 33.). I do not know if writer Hendrik Hertzberg is an attorney. However, it is clear that he actually read the opinion. I enjoyed his comment that "the ruling had nothing to do with marijuana's wickedness (which none of the four written opinions, two on each side, took seriously) and little to do with its efficacy in relieving suffering (which all four took for granted). To make sense of Gonzales v. Raich, a Supreme Court Decoder Ring, available with three box tops from Original Intent Ceral, would be a valuable accessory. The ruling, you see, was all about the Constitution's commerce clause . . . ." As for Justice Thomas's dissent, the author observed that "certain passages . . . could have been written by Justice Cheech or Justice Chong."
A Correction to Make....
In my April 29, 2005 discussion of Moreno v. Baca, I erroneously stated that the plaintiff was stopped by the LAPD. Correction--he was stopped by Sheriff's deputies. The defendant named in the civil rights suit was the Los Angeles County Sheriff.
Posted by Tim Warriner at 03:42 PM
June 18, 2005
Bad Spin on Jackson and Raich
The news media's spin on the Jackson verdicts is dissapointing. From what I have seen, most news organizations are pushing the story that the verdicts were wrong, and that justice was denied. Katie Couric on the Today Show suggested that it was inappropriate for the jurors to be affected by the demeanor and attitude of the minor's mother. The editors of the Today Show should have consulted with a California attorney before impugning the jurors: the California criminal jury instructions ("CALJIC") expressly direct jurors to consider such things as "demeanor" and "attitude toward testimony" when considering the believability of a witness. Also, something that is not discussed much by the media is that the minor's testimony was, according to expert legal commentators, unimpressive and riddled with contradictions. The media ought to set an example by showing respect for the jurors rather than attempting to twist the facts.
News reports of the Raich decision are also dissapointing. Even the Daily Show got it wrong. I've seen several headlines stating that "federal law is supreme--medical pot is illegal." However, Raich was not a supremacy clause case, it was a commerce clause case. The true story is more complex, and perhaps challenging to convey to readers: Raich perpetuates a conflict in the law. Medical users who possess smaller quantities, who are not prosecuted in federal court, may continue to use marijuana. The media treated the Raich decision as the final battle over medical pot, which it was not.
Posted by Tim Warriner at 07:36 AM