Hexi
Well-Known Member
http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2014/01/15/court-upholds-crackdown-on-pot-dispensaries/
I love the U.S. court's fascination with "legal precedent". The idea that because at some earlier point in time something was decided by another fed court; therefore there is no reason to even hear a new case? What makes it even better is how legal precedent is something that is designed to be argued in open court, not simply cherry picked by powerful judges as to when and when it doesn't matter.
They leave themselves an out with that nonsense about
“we are unwilling to declare that legal recognition of such a right has reached the point where it should be removed from the arena of public debate and legislative action”
That isn't even the point of the lawsuits, it's about protecting the victims of unconstitutional searches / seizures / arrests.
I love the U.S. court's fascination with "legal precedent". The idea that because at some earlier point in time something was decided by another fed court; therefore there is no reason to even hear a new case? What makes it even better is how legal precedent is something that is designed to be argued in open court, not simply cherry picked by powerful judges as to when and when it doesn't matter.
They leave themselves an out with that nonsense about
“we are unwilling to declare that legal recognition of such a right has reached the point where it should be removed from the arena of public debate and legislative action”
That isn't even the point of the lawsuits, it's about protecting the victims of unconstitutional searches / seizures / arrests.
