cowpies and roadkill are excluded from this offer
compelled a result

Here's an interesting NYTimes report on a speech given by Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, where he laments some of the decisions he has made as a justice:


Justice Stevens said he also regretted having to rule in favor of the federal government's ability to enforce its narcotics laws and thus trump California's medical marijuana initiative. "I have no hesitation in telling you that I agree with the policy choice made by the millions of California voters," he said. But given the broader stakes for the power of Congress to regulate commerce, he added, "our duty to uphold the application of the federal statute was pellucidly clear."


The right, particularly the Christian right, likes to whine about "judicial activists," who rule in favor of free-speech and against the public establishment of religion. Sometimes I wonder if rightists frankly lack the ability or inclination to understand nuance, but, often it seems like a disingenuous attempt at attacking the legitimacy of the constitution. Regardless, I think this was a brave effort by Stevens to explain that often the principles of the law push the justices into making unpopular decisions.

Posted by McChris at August 25, 2005 10:44 AM
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?