Also up for discussion...

Here's what I don't get:
Why spend the time, money and ink taking a case to the highest court, if their ruling presumably will not be enforced on the ground?

Isn't this the ultimate disrespect to the system of law, that what we have on paper and what we have "in action" are separate and distinct? Wouldn't it be better to admit, before judging on what "the law" is, these real-life limitations? Otherwise, it seems like hypocrisy to have people saying one thing and then looking the other way when it comes time to enforce "the law".

Again, it seems like wasted energy to me, this lofty idea of our most educated and intelligent elites deciding the law that is not followed in practice. (Though I must admit I did get a chuckle out of Scalia's federalism inconsistencies.) Worse, will such "laws" be selectively enforced? Better perhaps to have less "intelligent" judges and justices, on paper, who can see past their paper proclamations to a bigger idea of how law and justice works?

Maybe I just don't get it, but this whole War on Drugs thing seems to mirror the War on Terror in its effectiveness. But what do I know? Maybe we are all more safe from violence now, and medical drug use is in decline. Here's hoping ...