"Because smoking is harmful"

That's about as insightful an argument Inspector General Paul Clement can make before the Supremes in oral arguments in Ashcroft v. Raich.

This case is about as clear a case of states' rights as can be imagined. In fact, a number of states which don't even have compassionate use provisions for medical marijuana have filed amicus briefs on behalf of Raich.

Nevertheless, as I opined last week, many of our staunchest supporters of federalism on the Court have far less resolve when the issue at hand is noxious to them, as Dahlia Lithwick notes in her piece entitled, "Dude, Where's My Integrity?" over on Slate.

[Professor Randy] Barnett [who represents Raich] says there is no market if the marijuana is entirely isolated and policed by the state of California. "Isolated?" cries Scalia. "I understand some communes grow marijuana for medical usage!" Everything inside him recoils in horror. Federalism be damned.

Apparently, everything Scalia and probably enough others on the court to make up a majority know about marijuana, they learned from Reefer Madness.

And as we learned from this Court's decision on Bush v. Gore, precedents are made to be ignored when it suits them.