Look at the conspiracy theory:

1) Religous right is behind this.
2) The court rules to support state rights
3) The court rules to avoid economic protectionism
4) Remand to lower courts letting each state decide what poison the
administer
5) In the wording of the ruling have something there to back in to roe v
wade that supports state rights on abortion laws.
6) Affects more then wine.

That would be my guess if I were doing JFK--Oliver Stone method.

The end:-)


"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> dick wrote:
>
> > Mark, my only concern is that the courts even decided to hear the case.
In
> > so many situations like this they do nothing.
> >
> > Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there
cannot
> > be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That
said
> > since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear
the
> > case?
>
> You got me, Dick. FWIW, this current court (1994-present) is as
> unpredictable a Supreme Court as I've seen in my lifetime. My only
> guess is that someone feels that there's an angle to this case that
> hasn't already been addressed ad nauseum in previous decisions. Either
> that, or Ken Starr has bought off 5 Justices. ;-)
>
> Mark Lipton