The Supreme Court has been making headlines on almost a daily basis.
Given demands by the Left to pack the court, people worldwide are watching and waiting to see how the Court rules on many different issues.
And you won’t believe what the ultra-conservative Clarence Thomas just said about this divisive issue.
Recently the Supreme Court chose not to hear a case that dealt with a Colorado marijuana dealer’s tax dispute.
In a shocking move, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent to the Court’s decision not to hear the case.
Thomas argued that federal drug laws, which ban the possession of marijuana, no longer make any sense.
What has so many people shocked by Thomas’s opinion?
Clarence Thomas is a conservative and a large group of people who consider themselves conservative do not support any type of legalization of marijuana.
Clearly, we all know what happens when one assumes – but in this case, most assumed that Thomas would line up with the majority of conservatives who are against marijuana legalization.
Instead, Thomas wrote, “A prohibition on interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government’s piecemeal approach.”
The Justice continued on pointing out that while there is still a federal ban on marijuana in place, the United States government allows 36 states to have some type of legalization of marijuana.
Thomas called the federal government’s current approach a “half-in, half-out regime.”
“This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary,” Thomas continued.
He went on to point out that federal law prevents marijuana business owners from deducting business expenses, leaving them at a very real financial disadvantage.
It’s relatively common knowledge that many marijuana businesses work in cash because federal law prohibits some banks from accepting deposits because it violates federal law.
There is no doubt the entire system is a mess and unfair to those trying to run these businesses above board in states that allow them to.
Justice Thomas went even further in addressing the very real issue that “cash-based operations are understandably enticing to burglars and robbers,” but these businesses are unable to hire armed guards for protection because they “might run afoul of a federal law that imposes harsh penalties for using a firearm in furtherance of a ‘drug trafficking crime.’
While his opinion may have shocked many, Clarence Thomas hit the nail on the head.
It is high time the federal government gets its act together and helps these law-abiding business owners out.
Stay tuned to Right News Wire for any updates to this ongoing story.