In 1936, marijuana was vilified as the harvest of the Devil; the gateway drug to the hard stuff.  Reefer Madness was a propaganda campaign that swept the country in the years following prohibition.

Fast forward to the post-modern era of the second decade in the 21st Century, and we see marijuana legalized in a growing number of states, at least for its, er, medical use; the Justice Department ignores significant manufacturing and distribution operations, as directed by the U.S. Attorney General; and the SCOTUS is considering whether to hear a case this term to remove marijuana from Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substance Act.

While the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act has attracted much attention in the courts and the media all over Michigan, it has had a disturbingly polarizing effect on Dearborn District Judge Mark W. Somers.  The Dearborn judge has petulantly declared the MMA unconstitutional, and has referred to marijuana as: "Devil's weed", "Satan's surge", and "Satan's weed".

Judge Somers has lectured defendants wrongly convicted in his courtroom on the topic of Mexican drug-cartel-related child deaths and how the medical marijuana industry is directly related to this scourge.  In an infamous case, People -v- Brandon, Judge Somers ruled that, "the MMA is rendered unconstitutional in its entirety by operation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution."

Now he has been disqualified by the Michigan Court of Appeals from deciding any more cases involving the MMA on the basis that he has pre-judged individuals accused of marijuana possession and distribution, despite the availability of valid defenses.

We here at the Law Blogger find it disturbing indeed when a judge takes matters into his own hands, and substitutes his own world view for the law.  In disqualifying Judge Somers, we applaud the Court of Appeals that ruled the probability of actual prejudice at the hands of this rogue judge was too high to pass constitutional muster.

Perhaps it is time for the Judicial Tenure Commission to take a serious look at whether Mark Somers is fit and qualified to be a judge.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

For some time, this blog has been tracking the various twists and turns of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.  Every week, there has been something new on this topic.

This week, it was a Dearborn district court judge declaring the entire MMA unconstitutional on federal preemption grounds.  Judge Mark Somers invoked the doctrine of federal preemption and the supremacy clause in denying defendant's motion to dismiss in People v Brandon. He caught headlines by ruling that the MMA conflicted with an area controlled by federal law.

This week also gave us a rare "about face" from the Court of Appeals on the issue of video taping oral arguments in a seminal marijuana case.  A journalist, Eric VanDussen, sued the Court of Appeals upon being denied access to record the oral arguments in the People v Anderson case.  The High Court remanded the case back to the COA, mandating that the intermediate appellate court, "articulate the reason why 'the fair administration of justice' warrants the denial of [VanDussen's] request to film oral argument on May 10, 2011. 

As a result of the Supreme Court's order, the COA decided to let the cameras roll.  What's the "over-under" on how long (as in minutes) it will take for the video of the Anderson arguments to make it to YouTube.  I'm thinking five minutes.  [As promised, here is the link.  Note: it appears that the link has been disabled.]

Last month, a seminar on the MMA scheduled to be conducted in a privately owned horticultural store in Highland Township was cancelled on short notice on grounds the township clerk alerted organizers that it would vigorously enforce their pot growing ordinance.  In Highland, like many other townships, an ordinance imposes a moratorium on the growth, sale or dispensation of marijuana.

Also last month, a Saginaw physician, Dr. Ruth Buck, was indicted on federal charges of aiding and abetting in the distribution of marijuana, a Schedule I drug.  The suit questions Dr. Buck's due diligence relative to her examination into her patients' so-called chronic illnesses, as required under the Act.

In addition to the Anderson case, soon to be decided by the Court of Appeals, the Redden case, pending before the Supreme Court, is destined to be the seminal case on this subject for some time.  Last month, Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an amicus brief in the Redden case.

We will have our answers soon on the question of whether the MMA has the legs to stick around to authorize the palliative use of marijuana; or whether the act will go up in smoke as a failed piece of legislation, torn apart via ordinance and the common law.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/