Hallucinogenic Tea with Chief Justice Roberts

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. vixen@law says:

    I actually agree much more with your first two explanations. “Death with Dignity” versus “Suicide”… the whole debate just can’t help but trigger notions of morality, and strongly. Meanwhile, allowing a religious sect to use a certain tea doesn’t invoke the same response. Seems like you should just let them be to worship as they choose. I really think that many Justices on the Court decide the case way before they even hear the legal arguments.

  2. Mike says:

    I’ve read this post three times and don’t get your point. The hoasca tea case was a simple case: There’s a reason it was 8-0. Are you arguing that Chief Justice Roberts’ votes are inconsistent? If so, why are they inconsistent?

    Also, you wrote: “Why a stickler about uniformity in one case, only to poo-poo it in the next one?” Because, in the hoasca tea case, the Court was examining a specific exclusion regarding federal laws, namely RFRA. In other words the CSA had to be read in the context of RFRA. RFRA said that uniform laws cannot be uniformly enforced as against a religious practice unless the government could show that it’s enforcement met strict scrutiny.

    In the physician-assisted suicide case, however, there was no explicit exclusion of federal enforcement. The CSA covered everything, and because of the Supremacy Clause, states were powerless to carve out exceptions.

    If the law is the sun, RFRA gives religious persons some shade. In the Oregon case, there wasn’t a beach umbrella.

  3. Robert Tsai says:

    Shade is nice; indeed, my very point is that the more federal shade, the more comfortable Justice Roberts is. But that needn’t be the case.

  4. SCOTUSblog says:

    Blog Round-Up – Saturday, February 25th

    At 6:30pm on Wednesday March 1st, The American Constitution Society is hosting a panel discussion titled: “The Advocates Speak: Texas Redistricting Cases.” The cases are League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 05-204; Travis County v. Perry,…