Jackson Jambalaya

Hopefully the MS Supreme Court will hold and televise the hearing/oral arguments and not just rule based on filed briefs.

If the required number is obtained and each district has at least an equal percentage (total number divided by current number of district), what damned difference could it possibly make if the total exceeds a magical number?

Just another example of a camel being a horse designed by the legislature.

I had a law school professor who liked to quote the maxims of equity. My favorite was "The law does not require a vain and foolish thing". The Mayor's suggested interpretation of the law which results in every petition being disqualified seems to me a vain and foolish thing.

Only two petitions passed. If you read the complaint, they are attacking 65 before certification of the vote (Steffey blew that one last night on WAPT) while those two were certified.

Legislators failed to act on medical marijuana and failed to correct an obvious problem in our laws. Now tell me again why we don't have term limits? Taxpayers get to pay the legal bills and probably the legislature gets what they want in no 65.

“Irony” - what’s that mean?

-Republicans

The legislature fucks up yet again...

1053, you seem to miss the point of the complaint. The poorly written law does not account for the change in the number of districts, as all the other laws that deal with congressional districts.

And, its the Courts job to read and interpret the law, not rewrite it or fix it - and that is an absolute standard when the law as written is clear.

The fact that the legislature was aware of this problematic language and did nothing to fix it is damning - if the Supremes follow their normal practice they will rule in favor of Madison's complaint and say (in their ruling) to the legislature that the legislature needs to fix this.

They will probably say that it's clear that it needs to be rewritten, but it's not the job of the Judicial branch to fix the failings of the legislative branch.

Legislators failed to act on medical marijuana ...

Not pursuing legislation to legalize medical marijuana was not a failure to act.

Joel Bong-aars anticipated this and had his pot supporting buddy, Rep. Lee Yancy-Gold Coast, try what Watson did. It failed to make it.

The elected officials didn't want the unwashed masses to have a way for us to change the law without their say so. this is their way of stopping the initiative process.

How do you expect the legislators to do their job while putting down free (lobbyist purchased) filet mignon steaks and martinis at Tico's?

If 65 is thrown out would 65A be valid?

So you're saying Lee Yancey is ready and eager to buck Bryan Bailey? LMAO.

... as all the other laws that deal with congressional districts.

Which other existing laws in Mississippi have a similar defect?

I don't see how Mary will prevail on the merits of the case in the long run. There's no way a court will ever declare a law, that is mathematically impossible to be complied with, constitutional. If the petitioners can show that the count is in compliance with an equivalent standard (ie pro rata) there's a 0% chance it'll be rejected. Mary just painted a big target on Madison with the business interests that are pushing 65 by pulling this stunt. They'll undoubtedly spend money on the coming zoning lawsuits against her.

So the legislature can cancel the actions of the people by merely making it impossible for the people to meet the threshold to change the state constitution? That doesn't sound very small government.

Let's all post the same worn out comments that has been posted on the internet for the last 4 weeks.

Deep state is making a power play to protect their drug money. If they aren’t allowed to seize houses and cars and bank accounts of suspected potheads, their budgets will dry up. This is a gang turf war, it’s just playing out in court with taxpayer money.

12:23 Okay... you first..

Over the years, I've had a number of politicians tell me that Mayor Mary sometimes turns political disagreements into personal fights. Is that going on here?

"Now tell me again why we don't have term limits?" Do you really expect a legislature comprised of essentially do nothing folks making somewhat good money, from us taxpayers, to do nothing actually pass a law limiting their ability to do what they are doing? Don't ever see that happening.

This is a perfect example of why we don't need the pot law in the constitution, which is why 65 and/or 65A need to fail. Not because I am opposed to smoking weed, but because I am opposed to making it a constitutional right! If the people want to smoke weed then the legislature should pass it. If they change their mind later, then the legislature could change it. Otherwise we have weed in the constitution forever.

At the end of the day, the SCT is going to read the intent of the provision and change 1/5 to 1/4 because the intent was not to enshrine the 1/5 split forever, the intent was to have proportionate numbers of signatures gathered across the state. They just assumed we would always have 5 congressmen.

Them potheads are throwing a conniption fit thinking their legal dope smoking is SOL. As Rosco P. Coltrane would say, I love it, I love it.

So far, 11:37 a.m. seems to have the best take on what SCOM is likely to rule, but what happens next in that case? Can the initiative be removed by Election Day?

It's like we live in a People's Democratic Republic where the people have zero say and the party politburo ruling class can do whatever they want with our health, wealth, freedom, and they can also do whatever they want to our children as well.

But at least we still have netflix, amazon, and football!

12:09 So you say "There's no way a court will ever declare a law, that is mathematically impossible to be complied with, constitutional"

That makes sense - but if that's the case, then your opening comment is wrong.

If the court would never declare this law constitutional, then Mary has in fact won. And won big.

Yes, the court's job is to decide if a law is constitutional. And they are to decide what a statute (or constitutional amendment in this case) means. If they can tell what it means by the plain language as written, they are not to try to interpret what they think it was meant to mean.

And that's what you, and the pot industry, are wanting the justices to do.

Hey Now,@Reefer Madness..
Dont hate on Tico! You might beat his prices, but you can't beat his meat!

Mayor Mary isn't upset about pot being sold in Madison.

She is concerned there are no signage restrictions in the amendment.

1:06 - Nothing occurs to Mary until one of her servants tells her to pay attention. You think this was her idea? But, this has blown up in her face since, in the long run, if her lawyer prevails, voter I.D. will also be invalid. The only thing her lawyer can do now is drop the whole thing.

The Mayor needs to buy a bong and relax.

"Term Limits"

The people that will set term limits or set standards for the citizens to vote on term limits are the people in power that don't want term limits.

So the expression term limits would be an oxymoron? Right?

It's good to be Queen.

wanna bet the first MM shop in Madison has columns, terra cotta roof and sells designer weed? heck, i may i quit my job and get a loan and open it right up!!! pot there will sell for. 2x the price of the “common” ones in hinds or rankin..

The queen didn't figure this out. No way. She just volunteered for the mission because she openly hates Bomgar and no legislator wants their name on the suit.

Supreme Court did the right thing by delaying this action until after the election. It might be a moot point. Will be interesting how they deal with it after the voters make their intent known.

" Mayor Mary sometimes turns political disagreements into personal fights."

Of course she does. She's a pro when it comes to such !
She's been doing it very well for about 40 years now.

However she did look goofy on last night's news.
During her interview, she should have either worn her mask or removed it completely.

Letting her mask dangle from her ear was an embarrassment.

Plus, why did she wait to the very last to pull this stunt.

The only thing she actually accomplished was a few minutes on camera, and tight anal sphincter muscles for both her friends and foes.

Over the years, I've had a number of politicians tell me that Mayor Mary sometimes turns political disagreements into personal fights.

Sure you have.

When 65 is passed, I'm gonna make sure to put a Potshop next to a church in Madison. Brick of course.

2:39, thats a stretch to claim that if Mayor Mary's claim is found to be correct that it would invalidate Voter ID (or Eminent Domain) -- nobody challenged those initiatives before they were certified, so it is conceivable that they would stand. Or, it might be that someone would have to challenge them as well at which point they could be found to be invalid.

But as to the Voter ID - unlike the situation in 2009 when that initiative effort the Voter ID law would easily pass in the legislature should it be voided due to a Supreme Court ruling on its validity. In 2008-2010, with the Billy McCoy led House of Representatives there was no way that a reasonable ID bill could be passed - today, passing a statute rather than having the constitutional amendment would be no problem. In fact, it could be improved upon with the lessons that have been learned since the adoption of the amendment in 2011.

So dragging that problem across the road doesn't stink up this complaint at all - and your thinking it would cause Mary problems in Madison won't stick.

1:40 - no the initiative cannot be removed by election day; in fact there have already been many votes cast on the issue.

But that doesn't really matter. It would be a shock if the Court even tried to issue a ruling prior to the election (November 3rd); not enough time for the briefings, much less any deliberation by the Justices.

As the complaint points out, the SOS must certify the election results within 30 days, which will be the timeframe that the Court will probably act. Should they rule the current language invalid, then any votes cast for or against the initiative, or for 65 or 65A, will not be certified.

More people are doing weed in Madison than Ole Miss.

@ 6:19 you don't "do" weed.

"At the end of the day, the SCT is going to read the intent of the provision and change 1/5 to 1/4 because the intent was not to enshrine the 1/5 split forever, the intent was to have proportionate numbers of signatures gathered across the state. They just assumed we would always have 5 congressmen."

Wanna bet? The Supreme Court does not have the authority or power to make assumptions. Nor does it have the authority to 'change' the law by turning 1/5 into 1/4. The law, however clumsily written, remains the law until revised or rewritten and the Legislative branch, not the Judicial branch, writes law.