1 Legal Theory Blog has a lengthy discussion as to what Raich may mean for the "new federalism" doctrine the court had once been thought to be steering for in Lopez and Morrison. One of the joyous things about following SCOTUS, rather than Congress, is that, as a rule, Justices are inclined to explain - in lengthy, written discussions - as to why they vote a certain way. I like Justice Scalia a lot; I agree with his conclusions in most cases, I agree with his thought process and legal reasoning, and I like his writing style. Thus, when he reaches - as he does today, in Raich - a conclusion stunningly at variance with not only how I would have voted but how I would have expected him to vote, I can at least read his opinion and try to understand his logic. Alas, by contrast: when my Senators vote in ways that absolutley confound me, it's rather harder to get any insight into how they arrived at that conclusion. Today's majority surprises me, but once I've read back through the four opinions - Stevens per curiam, Scalia concurring, O'Connor and Thomas dissenting - I will doubtless have to think hard on whether I'm wrong about this.

2 Except for the use of Zyklon B, the so called WAR ON DRUGS has a lot in common with the Nazi WAR ON JEWS. The proganda is almost identical, and those who are not shot by the cops (death by delusional paranoia) are to die of "natural causes" (AIDS, TB, Hepatitas, Violence) in prison.