Although one should be cautious when interpreting a Supreme court Justice's questions, it appears Roberts is no champion of States rights. In the doctor assisted suicide case testing Oregon's voter backed alteration of federal drug laws.
Roberts repeatedly raised concerns that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules.
"If one state can say it's legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better, or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn't that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?" he asked.
Ahh...John...it's called states rights. Maybe the feds shouldn't be enforcing federal drug laws? I guess we know where he would stand on the Marijuana case
After reading this I'm starting to like Thomas even more. He is a predictable states rights guy. And while I'd be in favor of more federalism, if I got to decide what it looked like, I think the better approach is to let the tyranny of the majority reign on a state level, that way there might be the option of finding a state whose laws match your preference. So I'm moving to Oregon, not Seattle.
On another Supreme Court Note, I have read a lot of criticism of the Meirs nomination, for a good list check out the Volokh Conspiracy.
Keywords: Supreme Court