Gonzales v. Raich was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on June 6, 2007, June 6, 2008, and June 6, 2009. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What I'd like to know is NOW WHAT? What's the future for this? What's the process that it needs to go through in Congress, and when will it all happen? Does anyone have these answers?? 16:18, 10 Jun 2005 64.223.40.90
US Reports has the citation of this case as Raich v. Gonzales, which is how it was docketed by SCOTUS. For what reason is it listed here in reverse, and how would this be corrected (on the assumption that it is, in fact, wrong, although I would tend to assume that the Supreme Court's docket is authoritative). Simon Dodd 20:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This doesn't mention the effect on firearms
First, it quotes only from the dissent and not the majority opinion.
Second, it is entirely irrelevant (and ludicrous) that "activists" have compared the decision to the Dred Scott decision. (unsigned anon comment)
We should definitely cite it. Hilariously, the majority opinion was that growing your own pot affects the national market, so is covered by the Commerce Clause, because the government can't fully regulate the market in pot if you are growing your own (and therefore not taking part in the market). This would mean that any activity that can in any way be said to have an effect on a market that has an interstate dimension (in other words, just about anything) could be covered by the Commerce Clause (which was what Thomas argued in his dissenting opinion).
You have to smile at a judge who's willing to rule that the government can regulate your homegrown dope because you're refusing to buy it on the open market, which is illegal. Luther Blissett 02:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
This article is exceptionally biased. Not only does the government's case section fail to outline the government's case (instead outlining moral-type arguments for the defendant), the result section doesn't explain any of the result, instead describing the legally irrelevant position of the dissenters. Psychobabble 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried to fix it up a little. It did need quite a bit of balancing. But I think it's ok now. I've removed the tag, but it still could use some more info, and maybe a few more tweaks.-- Cdogsimmons 23:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried adding information for the majority opinion. The paragraph on Wickard wasn't deleted but moved down and combined with another paragraph in the Result sub-section. Jimmuldrow 19:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll let you make the judgment call on relevance, since I can be verbose. I mentioned Lopez and Morrison because Raich and Monson relied on them. Glad I could help. Jimmuldrow 13:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, the blue bar to the right lists the Case Opinions, which are basically what you said except I thought Rehnquist joined O'Connor's dissent instead of writing his own. You could add that up top if you wish. Jimmuldrow 13:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
What happened to Raich afterwards, when she could no longer use medical marijuana, since he doctor stated her life was at state? Has her health been shown to take a downturn? Of course, perhaps she continued to self-medicate, unofficially. 75.36.95.27 11:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The link to angel raich in the article just redirects to the article. i'm unlinking it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123fakestreet ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The article needs quite a lot of revision to bring its tone in accordance with the other Supreme Court cases on less controversial subjects. The article is presented in a much different way from the format seen in American law schools, even among the more liberal presenters such as Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky. The section on the legal background goes beyond the issue of the commerce clause to speak broadly about the role of the Federal government. "The switch in time to save nine" is not relevant to this case. Gonzales v. Raich is not a continuation of New Deal era government expansion. It should be read in light of Morrison and Lopez. Scalia's concurrence in Raich provides commentary on the commerce clause jurisprudence of the post-modern era. The Scalia concurrence is studied in law school to shed some light on how this opinion can be reconciled with Morrison and Lopez.
The article goes outside the Supreme Court decision to speak about the "medical necessity" of the plaintiff's use of marijuana even though it does not affect the commerce clause. There is no discussion in the case of how medical necessity could even be considered to abrogate congressional power. It reads like an argument for the medical use of marijuana. On what issues did the Supreme Court grant certiorari? Those are the issues in this case.
The section on the preliminary injunction is highly misleading as well. By definition, a preliminary injunction is only temporary in nature. The article places incredible importance on the preliminary injunction, even though it was initially denied in Raich v. Ashcroft, 248 F. Supp. 2d 918. Additionally, the 9th circuit is incapable of issuing a preliminary injunction. They are only capable of remanding to the district court to issue a prelminary injunction, although, in this instance, it is unclear whether the district court did just that when the Federal government moved for a rehearing and petitioned for writ of certiorari.
The organizations involved section (which should be more appropriately labeled "amicus section") has several inappropriate comments and opinions that are not relevant to the case. For instance, "The attorneys general of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, three strongly anti-drug states from the usually conservative South, filed a brief supporting Raich on the grounds of states' rights." To eliminate the slant from this sentence, it would be shortened to simply "The attorneys general of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi filed an amicus brief supporting Raich on states' rights grounds." The labels of "conservative" and "anti-drug" are not meaningful and misleading. The values and politics that many throw onto this case do not impact the commerce clause. The Supreme Court did not accept the amicus brief of the states because they found the brief's source to be ironic.
The subsequent events section appeals to the pro-marijuana opinion. It continues the slant of the article of the politics of medical marijuana. The subsequent legal impact of the decision is relevant, but the political commentary is not. Holder did not issue his Justice Department statement in reference to Gonzales v. Raich. This belongs in a medical marijuana article not Gonzales v. Raich.
The article needs to tone down its pro-medical marijuana slant and present itself as an explination of a legal opinion. Value judgments concerning the underlying issue, the parties to the case, and the politics detract from the article. Gx872op ( talk) 15:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've reread the Decision section a few times just to figure out if my brain isn't working this morning or if in fact, the actual ruling isn't listed. What the hell?
Also, what does "The last of the three was relevant to the issue at hand." even mean? Is it supposed to follow the sentence after it? It is an awkward and unclear statement even if that is the intended order. - Zyrxil ( talk) 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
So, was it 6-3? Or what?
71.178.66.122 (
talk) 05:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Why isn't there just a back ground provided? Why in the legal background do we have a rant about the new deal? I See hints at judicial activism but they seemed to come from the views of a wikipedia editor. Someone define neutral for me. 24.115.19.178 ( talk) 21:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is so bad I just couldn't finish reading it.
It is so lacking in details, it is so clearly one sided.
If this is what Wiki has become then lets just start a new website.
There has been a great deal of talk about changing this article, people saying they improved it, people saying we should improve it. Yet the article remains in a state. Can we not just copy the format of other supreme court cases? Mantion ( talk) 05:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Gonzales v. Raich. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't Scalia's expansive interpretation of "commerce" to include non-commercial activities a departure from his usual textualist, originalist approach? Congruent snackbar ( talk) 04:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gonzales v. Raich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)