I'll start off by saying that I scanned only the first page of the article you linked. But, my question was what was the constitutional basis for the decision, or even hearing the case. I was under the impression that SCOTUS is there for the sole purpose of determining the constitutionality of an issue.

 

The supreme court is also the "head" court of appeals. If they have jurisdicition in an issue they can rule on it. And considering this deals with due process (i.e. does it apply fairly to all) they can rule on it. And considering this was a 7-2 decision, I doubt this is a very activist decision.

 

And even so, this is clearly wrong to have crack singled out as somehow worse and cocaine not as bad, considering the racial divide.

The supreme court is also the "head" court of appeals. If they have jurisdicition in an issue they can rule on it. And considering this deals with due process (i.e. does it apply fairly to all) they can rule on it. And considering this was a 7-2 decision, I doubt this is a very activist decision.

 

And even so, this is clearly wrong to have crack singled out as somehow worse and cocaine not as bad, considering the racial divide.

 

I'm with you, now. I wasn't questioning whether or not it was an activist decision. All I was curious about was the constitutional basis, because I was thinking that determining 'constitutionality' was basic reason for the existance of the SCOTUS.

yeah I was writing it and missed your last post. If I may have one final discourse, the constitution is very vague about the supreme courts role. Early on in the countries history, it was actually the presidents who would decide on a bills constitutionality. That's how they used their vetoes pretty much until Jackson. Now they rely on the courts for that. Pretty interesting.