SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Courthouse News Service reports:
The Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday that the Justice Department is barred from using federal funds to prosecute individuals in states where medical marijuana is legal and the individuals are in compliance with state law.
Federal prosecutors in California and Washington state indicted a number of individuals under the Controlled Substances Act on a range of offenses related to the growing and distribution of marijuana plants.
The defendants moved to dismiss the indictments, arguing that an appropriations bill passed by Congress in 2014 and renewed in 2015 and 2016 explicitly bars the Justice Department from using federal funds to interfere with states that have legalized medical marijuana.
The story goes on to characterize the legal battle and the reasoning behind the ruling. Basically that ruling boils down to the fact that the state laws apply in this case, and the funding laws passed by congress seem to be only a bit player in this ruling.
Writing for the three-judge panel, O'Scannlain said that Congress' appropriations bill expressly prohibits the Justice Department from spending money to keep 40 states — including California and Washington — the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico from implementing their own medical marijuana laws. And federal criminal defendants may fight the use of those funds, he said.
The panel appeared to go further than just enforcing the "No Federal Funds" use by stating:
"By officially permitting certain conduct, state law provides for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in such conduct. If the federal government prosecutes such individuals, it has prevented the state from giving practical effect to its law providing for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in the permitted conduct."
That seems as close as you can come to a "States Rights" line of reasoning and still be welcome in liberal circles. The decision is reportedly being carefully scrutinized in the other circuit, and I would expect to see the government seek another venue.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Wednesday August 17 2016, @11:01PM
for being one of the saner circuit courts.
Should it stand, this could prove to be pivotal ruling in defanging the overreach of the federal government.
Also, what happened to Obama's pledge not to interfere with legalization states?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JNCF on Wednesday August 17 2016, @11:09PM
Also, what happened to Obama's pledge not to interfere with legalization states?
He's a politician, my dear; he lies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:08AM
Yep. If anyone is wondering why their privacy isn't being protected, and AT&T executives roam free and not in prison, it's because Obama lied. Like all politicians, in the one truly bipartisan activity they can all agree with.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday August 18 2016, @02:51AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday August 18 2016, @05:25PM
♥♥♥
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 18 2016, @03:48PM
Also, what happened to Obama's pledge not to interfere with legalization states?
He's a politician, my dear; he lies.
Seems like signing the bill that prohibits the DOJ from interfering with state legalization is the opposite of lying.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday August 18 2016, @05:30PM
And yet, he could do more. He has not, despite clearly being okay with flexing his executive powers. What he could do is discussed in another off-shoot of quintessence's original post.
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:15PM
I'm not aware that he signed it, most likely, because it's completely fucking irrelevant. We both know that what really matters is what the DoJ is actually doing, and that's to keep going after people. Which is odd, for a President that has no problems using executive power at all.
Why isn't the DOJ complying with this bill? Why isn't Obama acting Presidential, and using Presidential powers to put the DOJ in it's place? Where are the press conferences where he makes it public that the DOJ is no longer supposed to get involved, and by extension the DEA, with marijuana in any state that has legalized it? Granted, I religiously stay away from the news, but I think I would have heard about Obama coming out to support marijuana freedom laws. Correct with me actual news footage and articles please.
Obama is a slick used-car salesman. Signing that bill means nothing when there is a wink-wink going on that strongly indicates the complete lack of enforcement. It hasn't gone unnoticed by you that the Judicial branch is involved right now? That bill was created by the Legislative, and the Executive is asleep, stupid, and corrupt. The people actually responsible for complying with that bill have all but mutinied, and nobody at the top is doing anything about it.
Maybe it's not Obama's fault if these people are deliberately not listening, but that at best makes Obama a fucking pussy and bad President, and not so much of a liar. Whatever has happened, Obama is President, and last I checked... the buck stops with him.
This is just ONE issue out of many where Obama has lied and then betrayed us. Truly this isn't political commentary either, as I strongly believe that neither Hillary or Trump would act any different over the course of their 4-8 years either.
All politicians are extremely corrupt, and the best use for ALL of them worldwide is to attempt to fill in the Marianas trench with their bodies.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:41PM
All politicians are extremely corrupt, and the best use for ALL of them worldwide is to attempt to fill in the Marianas trench with their bodies.
It would certainly make James Cameron's next documentary more interesting. Crazy sea creatures and decomposing politicians? Take my money, IMAX!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:02AM
Well, he got the law the 9th court referenced put on the books, forbidding the DoJ from funding any prosecution. So, he did that. For valid reasons, it's considered pretty unacceptable for the president to directly say who should and should not be prosecuted on an individual level. Now, pardoning, that's all on him personally.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:41AM
He could explain that he will pardon anybody they prosecute, but only after they've gone through the entire process. This would seriously disincentivise any prosecutions, and if they called his bluff he could start pardoning. He has the de facto power to stop federeal prosecutions based on arbitrary criteria.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18 2016, @12:49AM
Or he could, you know, being in charge of the executive, not prosecute anyone, and fire those that do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday August 18 2016, @07:29AM
For pretty good reasons, while the president can fire US DAs, the last time it happened (when Bush fired 7) there was a huge uproar and 2 year examination of if it was an abuse of power.