Pubdate: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 Source: North Adams Transcript (MA) Copyright: 2005 New England Newspapers, Inc. Contact: http://www.thetranscript.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3745 Author: Clark H. Billings Note: Author is professor of history and political science at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, North Adams, MA A LESSON FROM PROFESSOR BILLINGS Your Tuesday, June 7, editorial titled "Some justices need to take a pill," concerning the U.S. Supreme Court's recent 6-3 decision to overturn state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana is, perhaps, the most mind-boggling piece I have ever read. Your first sentence reads, in part, "... the nation got another preview of the right-wing Supreme Court President George W. Bush and the radical Republicans in Congress would like to assemble." In your zeal to bash President Bush, you totally ignore the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. You should have noted (obviously you didn't) that four of the six majority justices constitute the liberal block on the court. They are justices Stevens (a Ford appointee); Souter (Bush No. 41); Breyer (Clinton) and Ginsburg (Clinton). They were joined by somewhat moderate conservative Kennedy and, in your words, "radical" conservative Scalia. How does that assembly of six give anyone a preview of what a Bush No. 43 court would look like? If that is indeed a "preview" of a Bush/radical Republican court, should we expect Bush to nominate Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson? The three dissenting votes came from Justices O'Connor (Reagan); Thomas (Bush No. 41) and Rehnquist (Nixon and then named chief justice by Reagan). When the four most liberal justices, including the two appointed by Clinton, vote to overturn the state laws providing for the medicinal use of marijuana, it is impossible to see your conclusion that this decision is a preview of a Bush and radical Republican court when two of the three most conservative justices (Rehnquist and Thomas) upheld the position for which you advocate. Given that, is it not possible that a radical Republican/Bush court might even overturn the recent decision? As to your assertion that this was a "power play by the likes of Scalia to somehow punish those liberals ...," you are way off base. Four of those justices that voted to "punish liberals" were themselves liberals. However, I do suspect a Scalia power play. I suspect, because he broke ranks with the other two card-carrying conservatives (Rehnquist and Thomas), that he was trying to ingratiate himself to the Bush White House in order to be elevated to chief justice when Rehnquist retires. It is also possible that Thomas' position was made in order to seem more moderate and more filibuster-proof if a Scalia appointment fails. The position that O'Conner, Rehnquist and Thomas took, on the other hand, was classically a conservative states' rights argument and against the expansion of federal government powers. And the position your "liberal" justices took was classically based on the expansion of federal powers (the concurrence of Scalia and Kennedy notwithstanding). I disagree with the decision, as you do, but it was no vast right-wing conspiracy as you suggest. Thus endeth the lesson for the day. CLARK H. BILLINGS Professor of history and political science MCLA North Adams - --- MAP posted-by: SHeath(DPFFlorida)