The Montana Supreme Court hearing in our case is tomorrow. It is scheduled to take place at 9:30 a.m. in the court’s chambers on the third floor of the Justice and State Library Building, 215 N. Sanders, in Helena. The Court has ordered that each side has 30 minutes or less in which to make its oral arguments, and they will be fairly technical in nature. There will be only two issues in front of the Court: (1) Did the District Court err in granting a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of certain provisions of SB423, and (2) Did the District Court err in not enjoining the entire Marijuana Act? In other words, the oral arguments will be short and technical.
For those who plan to attend, please be mindful that you MUST be on your very best behavior. There will be absolutely no tolerance for outbursts, cat-calls, booing, applause, or other inappropriate behavior. This is the highest court in the state and not a place for venting or impressing your friends with your passion for the subject. Those types of actions nearly always work against us and feed the oppositions’ stereotypes of us and will help no one but our adversaries.
Be early, be well-dressed, do not “medicate” prior to the hearing, and please be respectful and silent during the proceedings. The state of Montana and likely the national press will be paying attention, and any outbursts will be the first thing the press talks about. I will post a summary of the proceedings after they wrap up, so stay tuned!
I don’t think impressing friends has been high on the priority list of reasons people are passionate about this issue.
I couldn’t go if i didn’t medicate, it would be way to much pain.
Good Luck to Goetz, MTCIA and all those fighting the good fight!
As they mention, if you di so choose to attend, be respectful and not another Jason C. And we ALL know who that is with his sherlock piece…
I get it I’m just saying.Plus you can’t legally medicate at a court house anymore, It make us all look bad anyway.
The “impressing friends” comment was really about the sort of comments that were being shouted out at Code of the West. I agree with most of those types of comments, but in a setting like the SC, they are out of place. And for the record, there were no such comments at all during the hearing, so it really wasn’t an issue at all. If anything, there was a big laugh from the audience and the justices when the state’s lawyer seemed to suggest patients obtain marijuana from the black market.
I shouted something out at a “Code of the West” screening, and I certainly don’t regret it or apologize for it. And impressing my friends was the furthest thing from my mind. I take offense to the notion that anyone who is unable to sit quietly and offer respect to people that are in the process of disrespecting them are in it for prestige of some sort.
I never had any interest in going to the hearing for the simple fact that I knew my input or voice was never something anyone there cared about, and rightfully so. Perhaps I made a mistake in assuming I would have the chance to participate at the “Code of the West” screening but it certainly seemed to me like a more appropriate place to ask a question or offer an opinion. Unfortunately the format allowed only a very select few to have their voices heard so I improvised, I only wish I had said more.
I don’t know why the impressing your friends comment in this post made me so angry, but it did. Perhaps it’s the idea that someone who has the chance to speak for an entire community would choose to characterize some of those community members as insincere. Or maybe it’s just the frustration of not having a voice myself and having to rely on people I often disagree with to lend public credibility to the issues I care about. At any rate I think reminding people to be on their best behavior could’ve been achieved without questioning the sincerity of those who’ve expressed frustration in the past.
I’m not making the claim that yelling out anything would be helpful at a court hearing or anywhere else for that matter. But it would be nice if the passion and contribution of those of us who are never asked to participate in a discussion panel, were unable or discouraged from testifying in front of the legislature, or are otherwise behind the scenes could be recognized rather than marginalized in the judicial and political process.
All in all I wouldn’t be contributing a monthly donation to MTCIA if I didn’t think it was a worthwhile pursuit, I just don’t think dividing us should be part of the plan.