Let’s put 2nd Judicial Circuit Judge Karen Gievers' recent decision in a proper perspective, in that she ruled smokable medical marijuana in a “private place” is allowed by the plain language of Amendment 2, which is now -- unfortunately for you and us -- ensconced in our state Constitution.
To read mainstream reporters and even Peter Schorsch’s Last Call Tuesday evening, it seems everyone believes Judge Gievers' decision, as Peter put it, “will be the law of the land starting Monday.”
Wait a minute, buckaroo.
The likelihood of her ruling being sustained by the Frist District Court of Appeal is about as likely as Kim Jong Un agreeing to denuclearization.
It ain’t going to happen.
Judge Gievers has been overturned by the DCA only about 80 percent of the time.
Judge Gievers' original stay, which was appealed by the plaintiffs, was immediately overturned by the appellate court.
So, trust me when I say that the First DCA is going to overrule her lifting of the stay. Come Monday, current law will rule the day, and thank God.
Judge Gievers, who philosophically is left of Karl Marx, issues decisions not worth the paper they’re written on, and she knows it.
The fact she would allege that the defendants -- the state -- would have “no likelihood of success” is laughable on its face, as the judge can’t even get her legal opinions consistently ratified by the court, much less her ability to prognosticate.
The joke is really on all of those proponents who believed John Morgan and Jon Mills, the co-authors of the amendment language, that their intent was, by disallowing smoking of medical marijuana in public, it automatically would allow smoking in the privacy of one’s home.
Mr. Mills may be a noted constitutional lawyer, but he’s going to lose this one -- again -- at both the appellate level and ultimately with the Supremes.
That’s because, even as a non-lawyer, I know an author of a law or an amendment has to stand behind the words as written, not as authors meant to say.
As I’ve said repeatedly, if Morgan-Mills wanted to make smoking of medical marijuana legal, then they could easily have written it so.
But they didn’t.
And they didn’t for a reason.
The amendment would have lost at the ballot box.
So, Mr. Morgan, quit trying to bully the governor into backing down on his principled position on this very controversial issue, when you did everything to obfuscate your true intent from the beginning.
You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Yes, you and Mr. Mills were too smart by half.
When the authors of an amendment can’t even spell out in plain English what they want their amendment to do, something is very wrong.
With the authors.
The amendment is self-executing? No, take a toke.
The amendment says you can grow your own stash? No, take a toke.
The lack of clarity in the amendment language will bring irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and only Judge Gievers has the sense to make it right? Nope, take another toke.
In fact, take two tokes. Get high. Go ahead, you deserve it.
Because you guys are in fantasyland.
This isn’t about the need for medical marijuana for the plaintiffs. Because they can get it now, just not in the way they want it.
You want them to be able to get the good shit, and then you want them to be able to smoke it.
I’ve never seen a more pitiful excuse for lawyering than the two lawsuits on growing and smoking.
And to think Mr. Morgan wants to legalize marijuana.
May I respectfully suggest that y’all might want to have some really smart lawyers draft that language, because you two bumbling fools can’t even shoot straight.
If only y’all had written it correctly the second time, you wouldn’t have to be begging the courts to fix your sloppy work.
Sure, you can get a leftie like Judge Grievers to agree, but you’re not going to win on appeal, which is exactly why you’re asking the governor to change his stance.
Well, good luck on that.
As for the Supremes, you’re not going to get there anytime soon. And by the time you do, the Court’s make-up is going to be decidedly different, and you’re going to lose there as well.
That’s why this whole effort by special interests of trying to amend our sacred governing document has become so ludicrous.
If it’s not you, it’s the greenies arguing that their environmental constitutional amendment doesn’t provide for septic tank replacements, or for salaries of officials to make sure the work of government is efficacious.
To amend the Constitution is fraught with many unintended consequences.
That’s why we have a legislature and legislators, because if they don’t get it right the first time, they can come back and easily fix it the next session.
But when you’re playing with the Constitution, you have to go back to the people all over again to fix your mistakes, or in your case, the subterfuge that you hoped to foist on the people of our state.
Mr. Morgan, you are indeed very quotable.
But, if you think the election of our next U.S. senator is going to hinge on the outcome of smokable or growable pot, well, sit down, and take a big toke.
It’s not going to ever come down to that.
Barney Bishop III is a well-known lobbyist in Tallahassee. He’s a conservative Democrat who doesn’t believe that medical marijuana should have ever been put in the Constitution.
READ MORE FROM SUNSHINE STATE NEWS