This week the Supreme Court finally rendered its decision in Ashcroft (now Gonzalez) v. Raich. I'd blogged about this case before. The Court ruled in favor of the Federal government.
There is much that can be said about the wisdom of the decision or the Constitutional issues it raised. But that's not what I want to talk about. Sometimes Supreme Court decisions, particularly because they adjudicate cases coming from all over the country, seem very abstract. They're about strangers; they're not about anyone you would know.
But in this case I know both the lawyer who argued the case, and the doctor represented. It's very easy for me to see just how this decision affects some very real people.
Is it really a function of my journey through law school that the law seems more personal than it once did? Certainly my social circle includes far more people who have argued before or clerked with the Supreme Court than it once did... But then again, I already knew the doctor. And I know other citizens, like him, for whom these laws are meaningful to them, whether they realize it or not.
So perhaps I follow the law more closely than most. But just because I'm lucky enough to have the opportunity to pay closer attention to it doesn't make it more important to me than anyone else. It matters to everyone, but I sometimes feel that people feel overwhelmed by the law and abdicate their interest in it to the professionals. And sometimes I think practitioners play up that perceived gap, making ordinary people feel helpless and subordinate to it and dependent on the professionals to handle their legal matters. I think it's a shame. The law belongs to everyone, and everyone needs to be equipped and empowered to navigate it.
Date reflects when post was written.
Comments (2)
I'm writing this from Sweden! Hurden mergen blurgen blurgen!
Posted by mike | June 10, 2005 4:24 PM
Posted on June 10, 2005 16:24
You know, I think it's interesting that you wound up writing this post (about the personal impacts of law) with respect to this particular case.
Because of the procedural positioning of this case (which was essentially-- though not technically-- a facial challenge against the authority of the federal government to regulate marijuana cultivation) this was a case that essentially is faceless-- and is extremely abstract.
Unlike in most cases, here the activities of the nominal plaintiff (the doctor) were almost irrelevant, and even national drug policy was almost irrelevant-- this ended up being a very plain jane commerce clause analysis distinguishing the Lopez line of cases from the cases regarding the civil rights act.
The way the justices ruled accentuates the removal of this case from the apparant underlying issues. The most conservative justices were supportive of the doctor, while the more liberal justices were in opposition.
This strongly shows how the law (at least at this level) is very abstract... and probably should be.
Mark
Posted by Mark | June 10, 2005 5:01 PM
Posted on June 10, 2005 17:01