A few quotes from the Supreme Court, part II
As promised in the previous post, here are the examples of Justices’ opinions where they adopt the prevalent social attitudes:
“The detection and punishment of almost any criminal offense serves broadly the safety of the community, and our streets would no doubt be safer but for the scourge of illegal drugs.”
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) (Opinion by Justice O’Connor)
and,
“The difficulty of assessing gravity is demonstrated in the very context of the present case: Petitioner acknowledges that a mandatory life sentence might not be “grossly excessive” for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, see Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982). But surely whether it is a “grave” offense merely to possess a significant quantity of drugs — thereby facilitating distribution, subjecting the holder to the temptation of distribution, and raising the possibility of theft by others who might distribute — depends entirely upon how odious and socially threatening one believes drug use to be. Would it be “grossly excessive” to provide life imprisonment for “mere possession” of a certain quantity of heavy weaponry? If not, then the only issue is whether the possible dissemination of drugs can be as “grave” as the possible dissemination of heavy weapons. Who are we to say no? The Members of the Michigan Legislature, and not we, know the situation on the streets of Detroit.”
and,
“It is not “absurd” that a local housing authority may sometimes evict a tenant who had no knowledge of the drug-related activity.”
Dep’t of Housing v. Rucker (2002) (Opinion by Justice Rehnquist)
and,
“The Customs Service is our Nation’s first line of defense against one of the greatest problems affecting the health and welfare of our population.
[...]
Petitioners do not dispute, nor can there be doubt, that drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society today.”National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989) (Opinion by Justice Kennedy)
and,
“The issue in this case is not whether declaring a war on illegal drugs is good public policy. The importance of ridding our society of such drugs is, by now, apparent to all.”
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association (1989) (Justice Marshall, dissenting)
Now, most of these come from the majority opinions, meaning that even without looking at the opinions themselves, one could posit that the Court usually sides with the government drug warriors. Is it actually true? Another quote from the Supreme Court itself seems to confirm our timid assumptions. I will save the quote for the next post, though.
admin :: Jun.11.2007 :: Legal Issues :: No Comments »