Oregon Lawsuit Sparks A Brawl Of Pot In State vs Federal Law

[Silhouette]

Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA

That is not at all necessarily so.

It is possible for the SCOTUS to hand down a very narrow decision that applies only to the matter as presented to them. On the other hand, the SCOTUS could also hand down a broad decision that has implications well beyond the specifics of the case the Justices hear. How narrow or broad be any decision the Justices render is 100% at their discretion. Indeed, even the dissenting or concurring decisions can affect the extrapolative value of the majority decision.

The USSC would have to grant itself unilateral power to override the Legislature to regulate a Schedule 1 drug. They would be stepping around their authority. So your argument is void on that point. They then would have to try to say that 'just some states can override federally-binding law' which is the same as saying 'the way federal laws are made can be tweaked by the courts' (overstepping judicial limits again). The only way they could find for the state of Oregon would be to override the US Constitution. And, that isn't allowed via separation of powers (the Constitution).

The USSC would have to grant itself unilateral power to override the Legislature to regulate a Schedule 1 drug.

It doesn't have to grant itself any such power. It already has that authority and it's called "judicial review." Have you truly forgotten Marbury v. Madison? (Marbury v. Madison)

So, heroin next, state by state? No? Why not? (If you understand how case law works, and precedent).

 

[usmbguest5318]

Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA

That is not at all necessarily so.

It is possible for the SCOTUS to hand down a very narrow decision that applies only to the matter as presented to them. On the other hand, the SCOTUS could also hand down a broad decision that has implications well beyond the specifics of the case the Justices hear. How narrow or broad be any decision the Justices render is 100% at their discretion. Indeed, even the dissenting or concurring decisions can affect the extrapolative value of the majority decision.

The USSC would have to grant itself unilateral power to override the Legislature to regulate a Schedule 1 drug. They would be stepping around their authority. So your argument is void on that point. They then would have to try to say that 'just some states can override federally-binding law' which is the same as saying 'the way federal laws are made can be tweaked by the courts' (overstepping judicial limits again). The only way they could find for the state of Oregon would be to override the US Constitution. And, that isn't allowed via separation of powers (the Constitution).

The USSC would have to grant itself unilateral power to override the Legislature to regulate a Schedule 1 drug.

It doesn't have to grant itself any such power. It already has that authority and it's called "judicial review." Have you truly forgotten Marbury v. Madison? (Marbury v. Madison)

So, heroin next, state by state? No? Why not? (If you understand how case law works, and precedent).

 

[Silhouette]

^^ So is that the poster the State of Oregon is going to present the courts when the points I just made are brought up in argument?