This entry was posted
on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 12:02 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Why does Souter look like Ernie?
Hmm…no Clarence Thomas…what should I deduce from that?
This courtoon is racist.
No Ginsburg… this cartoon is sexist.
Gonzo v. Raich
Only dissenters J. Thomas and J OConnor said that California could allow medical MJ.
Scalia concurred with the majority, but said that the Commerce Clause wasn’t enough.
The majority, including all the “liberals,” had no problem saying it was OK for the Feds to crack down on Cali’s medical MJ users despite state law. Commerce Clause, of course.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
BTW, the issue in Gonzo v. Raich was small amounts of homegrown that did not leave the state. It was undisputed that the D used it for medicinal purposes only.
(personally, I don’t buy the medicinal purposes only, but that wasn’t at issue)
Wickard v. Filburn = states PWNED by feds.
I don’t buy it; Fritos were not contemplated by the framers of the constitution, so Scalia would obviously be opposed to them.
Agree with RyanL
This courtoon is RACIST! The fact that you didn’t include a black man when talking about marijuana shows how you made a conscious decision not to depict them in this Courtoon because they were the first thing you thought of when you thought marijuana. Not good Dave. The NAACP will not be happy about this. There is no positive male role model in the streets for us. Ain’t a thang. We live in the hood and by getting that dolla dolla bill ya’ll, we survive in the projects. Word Up.
[…] From Courtoons […]
Courtoons © David E. Mills 2008-09: Daily legal cartoons and comics.