Check out these interesting tidbits from the brilliant Beetle Blogger. It looks like we won’t be stuck with activists judges after all. As liberal as some people and elected officials in California are, at least we have a system where the citizens can participate a form of checks and balances. If someone gets out of line, we have the means to eject them from office, and prevent them from being even more destructive.
Automatic Recall of California Justices?
I learned an interesting thing this morning. Judicial appointments in California are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms. Who is coming up for the end of their 12 year term this time around??
Three California Supreme Court justices will be up for reelection to 12-year terms on the November 2010 ballot:
1. Ron George– led court to invent homosexual “marriage” last year
2. Ming Chin — voted to uphold Prop. 22 last year
3. Carlos Moreno — voted to invent homosexual “marriages” last year
Carlos Moreno was the lone dissenting vote on upholding Proposition 8. The amount of stretching and wheedling that had to be done in order to muscle his will into the state constitution automatically discredits him and disbars him in my mind. There is no way he should ever sit as a judge over this state with that kind of willingness to overlook the basic rights of the people.
Ron George is hardly better.
There are some days when I am so glad to be a Californian. When I look at these other states so helpless against their legislatures and judiciaries…It’s unfathomable the amount of work they have to put out to reorganize a corrupt system. The California Constitution gives the people power.
That’s something to be grateful for.
—Beetle Blogger
Get ready to vote folks!!!
Another tidbit that you might find interesting…Carlos Moreno, the 1 dissenter who voted to strike down Prop 8, was also on Obama’s short list for potential appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court. The very same list from which he appointed Sotomayor. Not very shocking coming from Obama huh? Sotomayor is right up there with all of the others who promote liberal ideologies, and hopes to assert her beliefs and opinions ahead of the rule of law when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.
Bush vs. Gore attorneys join forces against Prop 8.
Lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson were on the opposite sides of a case that determined a presidency. Now they’ve joined forces to fight against traditional marriage in federal court and are representing two same-sex couples.
Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 Florida vote-recount case, has teamed up with Olson, who represented the ultimately victorious George W. Bush.
In addition to his efforts for Gore, Boies is best known for representing the U.S. government in the late 1990s in its anti-trust case against Microsoft.Olson was the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, serving from June 2001 to July 2004.
They’ve filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage.
In addition to asking that Proposition 8 be declared unconstitutional, the lawyers are also seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the ban.
“Mr. Olson and I are from different ends of the political spectrum, but we are fighting this case together because Proposition 8 clearly and fundamentally violates the freedoms guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution,” Boies said in announcing thesuit.
The lawyers argue, among other things, that Proposition 8 denies the couple the right to marry and violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Chairm, one of The Opine Editorials’ brilliant bloggers, summed up David and Ted’s arguments from the news conference in which they announced their partnership in the fight for SSM in federal court.
These two lawyers who hope to take their case to the US Supreme Court
appeared on Hardball the other day. They want to use the CA marriage
amendment as the excuse to impose SSM across the country.
Below is a rough transcript. Note that their arguments have not
evolved one iota since the pro-SSM side went to court in Hawaii back
in 1993. Here are some quick points they voiced.
1. It is said that the man-woman basis of marriage law discriminates
“purely” on sexual orientation. A new term is coined: “same-sex
individuals”.
2. It is said that marriage is the right of an individual to marry the
person of choice.
3. Marrige is called a fundamental human right — not merely a
constitutional right — and that race and sexual orientation are
closely analogous.
4. The claim is that the marriage amendment is just about the word;
but the complaint they make goes much farther than that.
5. The complaint refers to an individual’s equality, but here the
lawyers talk of equating different types of relationships.
6. A new attempt at analogy is made: citizens who pass the citizenship
test being denied the use of the word citizen.
7. The complaint is the man-woman basis of marriage exists because
“same-sex indivduals” are unpopular and because the majority doesn’t
like what “same-sex indivduals” do in their relationships. They did
not once refer to sexual behavior.
8. They point to the example of Brown v. Board of Education — (an
activist decision that was poorly reasoned even if it came to a just
conclusion) and linked it to the Civil Rights Act which they said
would never have happened if not for the Supreme Court’s leadership.
Watch the 5 minute video and try not to yell at your monitor. They
can’t hear you. They can’t hear common sense either.
Cheerio,
Chairm
You can see these attorneys on MSNBC’s Hardball at the link {here}
On April 7, 2009, the Vermont State Assembly voted to overrule the governor’s veto and successfully neutered marriage in that state, allowing the state to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Marriage advocates who had organized to fight on behalf of marriage were largely ignored. The governor was ignored. The majority of people in the state were ignored. Yet, the damage was done. The state redefined this fundamental social institution. –Self Evident Truths
One would think that if you write to a representative, and that if you get a response, it would be courteous and professional…right? Well, so not the case with this guy. Check out this response my friend Euripides got from Trombley, to an email he sent about the marriage issue:
You must have a computer virus. Your email, below, is identical to others.
Why would someone in far off, sunny AZ try to influence a domestic issue in tiny VT?
Doesn’t AZ have an economic crisis to solve?
I did not like what AZ did to the housing market, but I did not bombard AZ with thousands of emails.
>>> 03/25/09 7:11 PM >>>
March 25, 2009
The Honorable Ira Trombley
115 State Street
State House
Montpelier, VT 05633-5501
Pretty rude, snippy and unprofessional huh? This is what Vermont tax dollars are paying this guy to do.
Other marriage advocates received the same type of email – a form email – from Mr. Trombley.
Yes, the message is the same as others. The thousands upon thousands of individuals all expressed the same concern – that the Vermont Assembly not make the mistake of neutering marriage. Apparently the message was lost on Mr. Trombley.Does Mr. Trombley really not understand how political campaigning and political advocacy works? (I am skeptical.) Does he not understand that each of these generated emails comes from and individual? (Of course he does. Why else would he bother to write me back?)
Did you notice that Trombley calls himself the honorable? Interesting huh? I could be wrong but I thought that only judges got to call themselves that. We don’t even call the President of the United State “the honorable.”
Click {here to see Mr. Trombley’s bio}. In writing, he appears to be a quasi intelligent person and thus capable of considering the will of his constituents when he goes to vote, you know, the job those folks elected him to do, and subsequently pay him for. Yep, that’s right, the citizens of Vermont are his boss! But he’d rather spend time drafting hideous form emails and mailing them out to all who wrote to him in support of traditional marriage.
Representative Ira Trombley repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.
Not very cooperative and forthcoming of an elected official who should kindly remember that he works for the people, and should they choose not to re-elect him, that would be called unemployment.
So if you were watching Fox News on Tuesday, right after they announced the California Supreme Court decision, then you probably saw the insane commentary from legal analyst Bob Massi. Check out this analysis from my brilliant friend beetle blogger, sent in an email after the decision was announced. She’s right on as always.
I think we should all apply for analyst jobs at fox. I don’t have any news experience, but obviously it doesn’t matter, I apparently won’t need facts either…
Fox News Legal Analyst??? What kind of comment is this? On live news, incorrect propaganda is being spouted:
“this movement, prop 8 was very much funded , millions of dollars, much by the Mormon Church as you know, they spent, they were organized, they went out .. what’s going to happen now? The bottom line is they lost….
There is a lot to be learned by this…. they got out charged, money wise. They got out organized. You and I have covered these kind of cases… its all about money. If you have the amount of money to go out and try to raise the kind of support you want, and to pay the people and the volunteers to get out there, those are the ones that usually win.”
—Bob Massi, Fox News Legal Analyst
Would you like a point by point rebuttal of this awful legal analyzing? I’m just a regular joe and I know more than your legal analyst does!
The Mormon Church gave no money. Only in-kind donations amounting to an insignificant fraction of the donations received in the Proposition 8 fight. As a prop 8 supporter I can tell you that I was not paid, and neither were any of the thousands of volunteers who worked tirelessly for marriage. We worked for Proposition 8 because it was right, not for money.
Proposition 8 supporters were out fund-raised and outspent by far, not the other way around.
Massi goes on to say that gays a “class” of people, now divided…
“We really have now… two classes of people within the same class… There is a sense of reverence. They want to be able to introduce their partner as their spouse. They want to say “this is my husband,” “this is my wife,” not “this is my partner.” And as a result, the reverence and the depth of that that you and I take for granted, they want that back. This will back very soon I’m sure in the next four years.“
If you want to let Fox know how you feel about Massi’s rah-rah,gay marriage rally, write to Fox News here: feedback@foxnews.com
Digg, delicious, facebook, twitter…it’s all there!
SALT LAKE CITY26 May 2009 Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.
Accordingly, the Church stands firmly for what it believes is right for the health and well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, it once again affirms that all of us are children of God, and all deserve to be treated with respect. The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other.
I am proud and very grateful to be a member of this Church, where our leaders remind and encourage us to all love and respect each other, and treat each other with kindness, despite our differing opinions.
Society, families and children will benefit from this preservation of marriage! As for the 18,000 same-sex couples who got married last year during a small window when it was legal, the court has ruled that they will remain valid. I find it interesting though, that these folks think they are married, in a state where our constitution clearly says their marriages aren’t “valid or recognized.” Married or not, homosexual couples retain the same rights under California’s domestic partnership laws, so hopefully they will learn to be happy with that. They aren’t being deprived of any civil rights like they try to convince everyone they are. I’m just happy that the court didn’t let them hijack real marriage.
The Supreme Court’s website is most likely overloaded, so I haven’t been able to read the justices’ opinions yet. I’ll post more info later! Prop 8 made history today for a 2nd time. I hope that now all of the other states will follow suit…it seems like a lot of them have been willy-nilly passing pro SSM laws lately, but since we know that the nation watches, and often follows, California, hopefully today’s decision will have a positive influence when it comes to preserving marriage in other states.
{p.s.} Pearl, I stole tags from your post! They was awesome! Thanks!!!!
My brother sent this to me. We talk quite a bit in my family about all of the great industrious men who helped shape this country, their contributions, their work ethics, their thoughts on business, how they became successful despite the depression and hard times etc., and their values.
Here’s a snipped from Henry Ford’sbook, “My Life and Work.” He talks about reformers, and interestingly, some of it totally applies to the reformers trying to reform marriage … known to us as the sometimes violent activists of the GLBT movement. You know those people, the ones who are working to corrupt this country and turn it into a moral-less and value-less society. I don’t like what the “gays” are trying to do to marriage, families and society in general, and I don’t think Henry Ford would have liked it very much either….Yesterday my husband and I were eating dinner out and we saw a very obviously lesbian couple at a nearby table, in the stroller was the cutest baby…My heart just broke for that child who won’t have a father in his life and how these women are depriving him of his right to a family with a loving mother and a father. Those two lesbian women will NEVER be able to give that child everything it needs and deserves.
Wake up America, these kids have rights that complete supersede any gay or lesbian parenting fantasy…
Have a read, it’s really interesting… I’ve highlighted a few of his points that I think can relate to our so-called marriage reformers. Questions and comments welcome below.
MY LIFE AND WORK
by Henry Ford
INTRODUCTION (CONT’D)
I am not a reformer.I think there is entirely too much attempt at
reforming in the world and that we pay too much attention to
reformers.We have two kinds of reformers. Both are nuisances.The man
who calls himself a reformer wants to smash things. He is the sort of
man who would tear up a whole shirt because the collar button did not
fit the buttonhole. It would never occur to him to enlarge the
buttonhole. This sort of reformer never under any circumstances knows
what he is doing. Experience and reform do not go together. A reformer
cannot keep his zeal at white heat in the presence of a fact. He must
discard all facts.
Since 1914 a great many persons have received brand-new intellectual
outfits. Many are beginning to think for the first time. They opened
their eyes and realized that they were in the world. Then, with a
thrill of independence, they realized that they could look at the
world critically. They did so and found it faulty. The intoxication of
assuming the masterful position of a critic of the social
system–which it is every man’s right to assume–is unbalancing at
first. The very young critic is very much unbalanced. He is strongly
in favor of wiping out the old order and starting a new one. They
actually managed to start a new world in Russia. It is there that the
work of the world makers can best be studied. We learn from Russia
that it is the minority and not the majority who determine destructive
action.We learn also that while men may decree social laws in
conflict with natural laws, Nature vetoes those laws more ruthlessly
than did the Czars.
Nature has vetoed the whole Soviet Republic. For it sought to deny
nature. It denied above all else the right to the fruits of labour.
Some people say, “Russia will have to go to work,” but that does not
describe the case. The fact is that poor Russia is at work, but her
work counts for nothing. It is not free work. In the United States a
workman works eight hours a day; in Russia, he works twelve to
fourteen. In the United States, if a workman wishes to lay off a day
or a week, and is able to afford it, there is nothing to prevent him.
In Russia, under Sovietism, the workman goes to work whether he wants
to or not. The freedom of the citizen has disappeared in the
discipline of a prison-like monotony in which all are treated alike.
That is slavery. Freedom is the right to work a decent length of time
and to get a decent living for doing so; to be able to arrange the
little personal details of one’s own life.
It is the aggregate of these and many other items of freedom which
makes up the great idealistic Freedom. The minor forms of Freedom
lubricate the everyday life of all of us.
Russia could not get along without intelligence and experience. As
soon as she began to run her factories by committees, they went to
rack and ruin; there was more debate than production. As soon as they
threw out the skilled man, thousands of tons of precious materials
were spoiled. The fanatics talked the people into starvation. The
Soviets are now offering the engineers, the administrators, the
foremen and superintendents, whom at first they drove out, large sums
of money if only they will come back. Bolshevism is now crying for the
brains and experience which it yesterday treated so ruthlessly. All
that “reform” did to Russia was to block production.
There is in this country a sinister element that desires to creep in
between the men who work with their hands and the men who think and
plan for the men who work with their hands. The same influence that
drove the brains, experience, and ability out of Russia is busily
engaged in raising prejudice here. We must not suffer the stranger,
the destroyer, the hater of happy humanity, to divide our people. In
unity is American strength–and freedom. On the other hand, we have a
different kind of reformer who never calls himself one. He is
singularly like the radical reformer. The radical has had no
experience and does not want it. The other class of reformer has had
plenty of experience but it does him no good. I refer to the
reactionary–who will be surprised to find himself put in exactly the
same class as the Bolshevist. He wants to go back to some previous
condition, not because it was the best condition, but because he
thinks he knows about that condition.
The one crowd wants to smash up the whole world in order to make a
better one. The other holds the world as so good that it might well be
let stand as it is–and decay. The second notion arises as does the
first–out of not using the eyes to see with. It is perfectly possible
to smash this world, but it is not possible to build a new one. It is
possible to prevent the world from going forward, but it is not
possible then to prevent it from going back–from decaying. It is
foolish to expect that, if everything be overturned, everyone will
thereby get three meals a day. Or, should everything be petrified,
that thereby six per cent, interest may be paid. The trouble is that
reformers and reactionaries alike get away from the realities–from
the primary functions.
The California Supreme Court announced today that it will rule Tuesday on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that resurrected a ban on same-sex marriage, or in other words, the people defined marriage as only between 1 man and 1 woman.
The ruling, which will be posted at 10 a.m., will also determine whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will continue to be recognized by the state.
The Supreme Court has posted their “Notice of Forthcoming Filing” {here}. Click on the pdf link to see the actual document.
Check out this article posted on Glenn Beck’s website. I think he’s brilliant, by the way, and completely American!!!! He seems to “get it” and so should more Americans. Speak your mind in the comments section below!
The Constitution gives the Congress only 17 discrete powers. One of them is the power to regulate interstate commerce and another is the power to tax incomes. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, almost from the time the first Congress sat, it used its Commerce Clause power to tax goods, to control private behavior, and even to prohibit items in interstate commerce. Subsequent Congresses used that power to control the conditions for production and sale of goods that eventually made their way into interstate commerce. And modern Congresses have used that power to regulate any human behavior they wish, so long as the behavior, when combined with other similar behavior, might conceivably affect the movement of goods or persons in interstate commerce. Thus, today, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the size of the toilet bowl in your bathroom, the number of legs on your desk chair, the strength of the water pressure in your shower in your home, the amount of wheat you can grow in your yard, the amount of sugar manufacturers can put into ketchup, the words you can utter in public or private, are all regulated by the Congress, claiming power under the Commerce Clause. And the feds, as well, use their enormous horde of cash from our income taxes to bribe the states by paying them to regulate in areas that the Constitution prohibits Congress from regulating.
2.) How to address this?
We need an amendment to the Constitution that expressly limits Congress to exercising only the 17 specific powers that are delegated to it in the Constitution and defines and limits the regulation of interstate commerce to its original meaning of keeping commerce regular by preventing all governments, state and federal, from interfering with it. We also need to rescind the 16th Amendment and affirmatively prohibit any federal tax on persons, as individuals or as groups. These two measures will starve the federal government back down to the footprint established for it by the Constitution. The Constitution can only be amended by enactment of an amendment by three-quarters of the legislatures of the states. In order to get to the state legislatures, an amendment can only come from an affirmative vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, or from a constitutional convention which Congress must call if asked to do so by two-thirds of the state legislatures.
In defense of Marriage, Family, Conservative values, and the Constitution, while exposing the homosexual activist agenda, the decline of morality in America, and the massive corruption in politics. Bloggers are the new media!
