Jackson Jambalaya

Big political risk to overturn the will of 70% of the electorate

Should have nothing to do with it.

KF @ 12:50 PM

+1,000,000

Maybe a political risk, but that's not the role of a Court. The Justices should be ruling on the law, not the politics.

Granted, that's all the smokers want to argue - ignoring the law and the fact that it would take nothing for the legislature to fix the law. And at the same time, the legislature should be paying attention to the 68% vote and while fixing the I&R statute should the Justices uphold the petition, pass a legitimate MEDICAL marijuana statute.

Would solve all of the problems - takes this abomination out of the constitution, creates a marijuana program developed with the assistance of the medical professionals and not just based on the marijuana industry. And in a separate bill, clean up the I&R statutory/constitutional language so that the screwy language that the current amendment requires can be eliminated and make the voting on future I&R submissions be easier to understand.

I believe the current Supremes are fairly constructive constitutionalists - not activists - and will look at the language as it reads and not as AG Moore (on one occasion, while not on another) read it or how SOS Hosemann decided on his own to rewrite the constitution - without legislative action

The livestream of the oral arguments should be popular

Some counties are dry, some counties are foggy.

Now this is what election fraud looks like Republicans. Overturning a supermajority of voters because you don’t like how they voted.

This might be just the push that Mississippi needs to flip blue. May actually be beneficial long term if the right subverts the voters on this one.

1:20 PM
No fraud about it. Legislature has continued to fuck up in not fixing the language after redistricting.

1.2 million voted. Very likely half of those (600,000) weren't included because of ballot phrasing trickery. There was nowhere near 70% or "supermajority" here. I dare say, with all numbers on the table, they were in the minority.

How many amendments will be ruled illegal if Mary wins?

1:28 flip blue, will not happen. Most of the folks that voted for this are republican and they were misled about this being for medical use.

All of them if they were not done properly

If its not supposed to be about politics, then why are the supreme court justices elected?

1:34....1.1 million voted in the first section of the intiative, and over 1 million voted in the second part. Quit making stuff up.

I love reading comments about the difficulty in understanding what was on the ballot. 1) The "anti" people are who made it confusing and 2) now the "anti" people are saying that only "anti" voters were too stupid to figure it out.

1:28 - there is no "right" (or "left" for that matter) here. And there is no subverting the voters either. The case before the court is a constitutional question, not a political one and if you want to make it political, tell us why you consider the right being different from the voters. Last time I checked the returns from last week, the 'right' carried MS in the Presidential and the Senatorial races, along with 3 of the four Representatives. And the folks voting for what was labeled as "medical marijuana" carried the vote as well. So it seems to me that you are trying to confuse the issue just as the legislature did back in 1991 with the language they required to be put on the ballot.

And - not to burst your bubble - but it would take a hell of a lot more than this to turn Mississippi blue.

12:58 makes a good point. The legislature can still come in and fix this and make it a good law. Except now, their solution will have to be palatable enough to voters to pass an amendment to what we just added to the constitution. And that's probably a good thing because whatever they come up with by themselves would be a token, feel-good fix.

Soooo, what say ye legislature? Put a common sense medical marijuana amendment on the ballot next year.

I hope this gets overturned. It should not be written into the constitution. The legislature is well aware it passed with 70% which should be enough to encourage them to pass it into law.

2:09, Agree about 12:58's comments, but don't necessarily agree that they need an amendment for next years ballot. That would again put it into the constitution which is one of the main problems with I65 in the first place.

It is my belief that the legislature could, and would, pass a legitimate and decent medical marijuana bill putting it into statute following the interest that was shown this year in the subject.

But I also believe that the bill passed by the legislature wouldn't satisfy the big backers of I65, who want a law written for the benefit of the industry and not necessarily for the benefit of the folks who might could legitimately benefit from the medical use of the cannabis. That though shouldn't upset those that supported I65 for the potential medical benefits - while it won't satisfy those that supported it as a gateway to recreational weed.

That would be a good solution, though. The promoters of 65 would have to start making their real argument if they wanted to do something different than providing a method for medical benefits (which clearly is their intent.) And it would shake out those that think medical is a good thing but don't give a damn about investing in the pot shops, licensing facilities or the production.

As to the lawsuit, it would not be uncommon for the Justices to say that the language in the current constitution about the I&R is clear and that it produces an impossible solution. Recognizing such and that the legislature has been aware of this (with the filing of several bills to fix it) that maybe the legislature didn't want it fixed; but if they do then they should hop to it and do their job - not expect the courts to do it for them. Such language has certainly appeared before in their handdowns

Then while the legislature fixes the 1/5 to something like Watson proposed - a prorata formula - they could fix several other parts of the language to make the process a more reasonable one than the legislature created originally.

And the court can and should ignore any reference to the 70% political nonsense - just like they should ignore the claims of over 220,000 signatures since over half of those were not eligible or legal signatures. This is not a PR campaign, this is a legal argument.

This is DOA.

Money has been paid to the judges already.

Crooked Coleman to defeat the will of the people!

He’s not even American! He’s illegal! And his twin is illegal too!

How did the Supervisor from District 5,ever think that this would be a good idea for his voters ?

2:06 - it’s a constitutional question brought by politicians looking for any excuse to overturn the vote of the people. They sure didn’t pull this crap when they sought to limit minority voting via new voting requirements. The entire Republican Party was in all out campaign against this amendment in the weeks prior to the vote.

Would likely make voter id and other ballot initiatives since 2002 unconstitutional. Republican AG and SoS agree the lawsuit was untimely and the Constitution has never been construed to include provisions that are impossible to meet. Don't see the conservatives on the Court buying 65's opponent's argument. But, you never know. They could take a literal view and rule every initiative since 2002 void.

This is going to be ugly if they steal this election. Terminal patients and their families who are passionate about this issue and don’t have a whole lot to lose may be more of an obstacle than the Republicans are considering. Taking this from them in such an anti-American fashion will really piss off some folks.

Mayor Mary, sit back, smoke a blunt and chill out! Leave this alone.

Some of the comments here reflect strongly on the ignorance of people when it comes to the three branches of government.

The Judicial Branch, in this case the MS Supreme Court, shall not make decisions based on what the voters want. They shall follow the state and/or U.S. Constitution, period.

When they don't, they are activist and politically judges/justices.

To me this is like the fence line law in some places, if you leave the fence up long enough it becomes the property line. They have been passing amendments since 2002,this way, it must be okay.

Leave Mary alone. She does not care if you smoke a joint to relieve your pain. She also does not care if you get hooked on opioids as long as you buy them at a chain store with brick columns. Appearances matter much more than morals and health and compassion. That's why our town is so successful.

If y'all really think that the supreme court of MS doesn't vote based on politics, y'all are nuts! Happens everyday. It hasn't followed the law since Jim Smith was Chief Justice.

The Queen offers a way out of that impasse. The other two initiatives were certified. This one has not been certified. Her reply to Intervenors and SOS said that.

2:00 PM
This is one of the things I disagree with about Mississippi Judicial system. Supreme Court should not be elected; they should be appointed.

2:58 - please explain your comment:

sought to limit minority voting via new voting requirements

Is this in reference to voter ID?

The legislature passed an alternative to a ballot initiative that was certified by the SOS based on a process approved in an AG Opinion and utilized by several prior initiatives, which are now law. Perhaps, because 273 was working just fine, the legislature did not think it necessary amend 273.

Can't think of another context where the legislature has acted so explicitly in a manner (by passing an amendment) to essentially condone what someone says is not the intent of the legislature.

3:44 pm

That’s not true.

Those judges are elected by the people and they should listen to the people.

Not sure where you went to skool but you are a libtard.

Treatments of cancer, RA, MS, and dozens of other debilitating diseases that have no cure and cause constant pain should be decided by the patient without any politics. A person who is dying or going to die from the disease they have should be in charge of their pain and overall treatment, not a politician, religious group or joe citizen. Why can dangerous, highly addictive meds be legal and administered for these conditions but a natural supplement cannot be given due to our laws? No politician should be in charge of a dying person's life quality.

...based on a process approved in an AG Opinion ...

An opinion is not an approval.

It is all about the money and who controls the weed business. It is much more profitable to be a bootlegger in a dry county than having a liquor store

If it isn't available on August 15, 2021 I am suing Mary and anyone else who has stood in the way.

3:44, its not ignorance if you point out how things are as opposed to how things should be. Methinks you are the ignorant one if you think the US Supremes don't vote along political ideology. To you, its politics any time somebody doesn't agree with you. If they agree with you, its the correct legal interpretation.

If Ridgeland could build that monstrous office building that is ten stories higher than the ordinance allows, don't come on here talking about the rule of law and strict interpretation. Half of our laws are shams to protect business contributors from competition and protect elected officials from having to take unpopular stands.

This is a great example.

This probably doesn't fit in here, but I have been dying to tell this joke. You know the difference between alcohol and marijuana? Give 5 guys enough alcohol and they will start a fight. Guve 5 guys some weed and they will start a band. There, now, that didn't hurt.

7:43, good post. Elected officials ignore the letter of the law all the time and argue about "intent"....meaning the law only applies when they want it to apply. Like the Costco fiasco. If the Mayor wants it, damn the ordinance. But if the Mayor doesn't want it, hide behind the ordinance. State does the same thing.

And don't forget the infamous Treehouse in Clinton. Officials lost at every level including the supreme court because no judge wanted to be the judge that told those kids to tear down their treehouse. Politics DOES come in to play.

Doesn't matter what they do... we have always had plenty of weed and we will continue to have plenty of weed. You don't need a doctor to get it....

If I get cancer, I’m going to the nearest medical marijuana state. My parent died of cancer last year. Between chemo and the opioids for pain, he couldn’t take a crap. It took 2 chemo treatments and a cyber knife to beat him down to the point to where he couldn’t get up for his treatments. It blows my mind that the oncology lobby came out against this. People should have a dang choice.

The court can either fix the law since the legislature hasn’t done it (what they should do) or the will of the people will be subverted because of Big Pharma & politics.

Sure was a strange ballot. First box selection was for or against all, then second box was choosing between 65 and 65A when you already voted against all. Trick?

Amen to 8:28........people get your panties out of a wad!!! There's enough for everyone. :-)

10:18 Yep. That's the only way this passed.

For those of us who only voted "NO TO BOTH" without (additionally) voting below for 65 or 65a - BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT EITHER - were not recognized or counted properly.

Someone should be horsewhipped.

2:47, once again claiming that all "anti-65" voters are idiots and dupes. But the "pro-65" people figured it out just fine, and that's after the legislature purposely tried to fool them.

452, your comment MIGHT have merit if in fact it included statements that actually happened rather than crap you made up either out of ignorance or just trying to make a point and hoping nobody would call you out.

But only two amendments gave been adopted by referendum - Voter ID and Eminent Domain. Only one other initiative has made it to the ballot - Personhood.

The two that passed, unlike your claim, did not have an alternative placed on the ballot by the legislature - they of course had that option but in those cases did not opt to take it.

Next time - either get your facts straight or keep out of the conversation.

Hold on now, spud. Barksdale 's initiative made it to ballot and there was an alternative. Just sayin'.