Six Justices in Search of a Fig Leaf: No time to read the opinions, but this seems absurd on its face.

Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug . . . [Justice John Paul] Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

Their voices were heard, you jerk-off, in their state houses and assemblies. Hence the state laws legalizing medical marijuana. And Stevens is what passes for a liberal on this court. Just another political schmuck searching for ways around federalism when it suts his aims. I'm tired of him. Somebody point his walker toward Shady Acres and give him a shove, and send in some fresh new faces.

Look for Randy Barnett, whose appellate victory this overturns, to combust here.

More: David Bernstein weighs in:

Every Justice who joined Stevens's opinion voted to prohibit states from regulating homosexual sex in Lawrence and [if they were on the Court at the time] voted to limit the government's power to regulate abortion in Casey. Why was the democratic process not the appropriate avenue of relief for the victims of overzealous government regulation in those cases? It seems we do to some extent live under a system where the personal preferences of the Justices, having nothing to do with the history, text, or logic of the Constitution, dictate when the Supreme Court will or will not intervene to overturn particular regulations.