Clueless About Cocaine Derivatives, US Supreme Court Justices Struggle with Facts of Drug Case
A recent oral argument before the nation’s highest court probably won’t make much of a difference in the grander scheme of things, because the sentencing law at issue has already been changed by Congress.
And that’s just as well, because none of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared to have much of a clue concerning the chemical properties of cocaine derivatives on which the case turns, writes columnist Dana Milbank in the Washington Post.
“Optical isomers are nonsuperimposable mirror images, like right- and left-handed versions of the same molecule,” explained attorney Nicole Saharsky, arguing for the Department of Justice. But “geometric isomers … are based on spatial arrangements where a certain part of the molecule is pushed out or pushed up axially or equatorially.”
Meanwhile, the justices sought to simplify this and other concepts, recounts Milbank.
“Cocaine base means the same exact same thing as cocaine, because cocaine is a base,” mused Justice Elena Kagan, at one point, as she pondered the case aloud. “It’s like referring to an apple by saying ‘apple fruit’ or referring to a poodle by saying ‘poodle dog.’ “
Milbank suggests that the justices should take a powder on the case.
Related coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “Supreme Court Holds Revised Sentencing Guidelines Are Binding in Crack Resentencing”
SCOTUSblog: “Argument preview: What is ‘cocaine base’?”
Updated at 8:45 p.m. to link to SCOTUSblog post.