Californian’s Will Have Their Say On Supreme Court Justices Who Constitutionally Stray//

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.

For more info on Judicial Activism {click here}.

Source: Beetle Blogger

Fox News Prop 8 “Legal Analyst” Bob Massi’s Commentary Way Off the Beam//

Massi_R

Photo: Bob Massi

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.
Fire the “Legal Analyst”.
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!

Check out Bob’s video:

Stop Harvey Milk Day in CA Public Schools/ SB 572//

milk_penn320Oppose the pro-gay “commemorative exercises” of SB 572 aka Harvey Milk Day

Check out the following info from Beetle Blogger’s Post:

Thanks Beetle!!!!!

Children are already being indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle in government schools, but a new bill in the California Legislature would make things much worse.

SB 572 by homosexual activist state senator Mark Leno of San Francisco, a Democrat, would create an official “gay day” called Harvey Milk Day. It would be pushed on every California government school, affecting children as young as kindergarten.

I don’t get it. Hollywood makes a movie and now all of a sudden some guy gets his own “day” in public school? The gay community has several “days” already don’t they? I’m more concerned with this bill then with researching gay history,  however, it would seem that if gays were so sentimental about Harvery Milk, they would have tried to get him a “day” even before Hollywood thought they could make a mint with that movie. Maybe they did, and I just haven’t heard about it…

Can you even believe this? Seriously folks, we do NOT need an official “gay day.” Don’t the activists try to make every day “gay day” already? They needn’t worry about us forgetting they are out there,  perverting society, robbing children of their innocence, bombarding public schools with their trash, trying to destroy marriages and families, oh, no, we  won’t forget them…they are 24/7 trying to indoctrinate this country with their lack of morals  and values and perverted lifestyle.  Personally, I’m pretty sick of it!

If you can’t afford to send your kids to private school, and if you work and can’t home school them, then you need to get involved in fighting this bill. Use the info below to contact our representatives and let them know this bill’s gotta go!

TAKE ACTION NOW {Click here to continue reading…}

Prop 8’s Day In Court// justices skeptically grilled lawyers seeking to overturn the state’s ban on gay marriage…

Shannon Minter, standing, speaks to the California Supreme Court in San Francisco, Thursday, March 5, 2009 on the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will decide whether to uphold the same-sex marriage ban and whether same-sex couple marriages will remain valid. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, pool)

Shannon Minter, standing, speaks to the California Supreme Court in San Francisco, Thursday, March 5, 2009 on the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will decide whether to uphold the same-sex marriage ban and whether same-sex couple marriages will remain valid. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, pool)

California Supreme Court Justices heard arguments today from both sides on the validity of Proposition 8.

Kenneth Starr was amazing today, representing the Yes on 8 campaign in front of the Supreme Court! The definition of marriage as only between 1 man and 1 woman may remain in tack! Supreme Court Justices may actually remember they don’t have authority to dictate voter’s rights. Here’s the scoop from today’s Prop 8 Supreme Court oral arguments. Things are looking good so far!!!

“What I am picking up from the oral arguments is that this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people,” said Kennard, who just 10 months ago voted that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated the civil rights of gays. “The people established the constitution; as judges, our power is very limited.”

According to the SF Associated Press, thousands of demonstrators showed up to chant and wave signs outside of the CA Supreme Court building today, as the Justices geared up to hear and question oral arguments from parties on both sides of the gay marriage ban issue.

Attorney’s for gay couples and supporters of SSM argued that gay civil rights are being violated and tried to,

persuade the California Supreme Court that the public’s right to change the constitution doesn’t extend to depriving an unpopular minority of the right to wed.

But the court’s seven justices indicated a wariness to override what Associate Justice Joyce Kennard called the people’s “very, very broad, well-wrought” authority to amend the state’s governing framework at the ballot box.

Couples who married during the short 4 1/2 month period in which the ban on SSM was lifted, were disheartened by the tone of the hearing and not very hopeful that the justices would strike down the ban that voters put in place with a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 last November.

Bad news for gay couples, but amazing news for those of us who voted Yes on Prop 8 and want to see the traditional definition of marriage preserved, as was the entire reason for the ballot initiative in the first place.

Gay rights advocates argued the proposition is such a sweeping change to the constitution’s equal protection clause that it was a constitutional revision, not just an amendment. A revision requires legislative approval before it lands on the ballot.

Chief Justice Ronald George, who also ruled last year to strike down a pair of laws that limited marriage to a man and a woman, echoed Kennard’s qualms about denying voters their voice.

The Supreme Court acknowledged today that the voters were well withing their rights to vote to amend their state constitution and place a ban on gay marriage. It has happened hundreds of times before, 500 times to be exact, compared with just 27 amendments to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice Ronald George noted that it is up to the Legislature and the voters to make the amendment process more difficult, not the job of the court.

“It seems what you are saying is, it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution,” George told Raymond Marshall, an attorney representing the NAACP and other civil rights groups trying to overturn the ban. “Maybe the solution has to be a political one.”

Too easy or not, the amendment, revision, or whatever, is already done, and if some think it’s too easy to amended our state constitution, then that is an issue to be addressed outside of the court and  should not be related to the Constitutionality of Prop 8.

Minutes into Thursday’s proceedings, the justices peppered a lawyer representing unwed same sex couples with tough questions over how the 14 words of Proposition 8 represent a denial of fundamental rights when same-sex couples still have the legal benefits of marriage through domestic partnerships.

“Is it your argument in this proceeding that the passage of Proposition 8 also took away in addition to the label of marriage, the core of substantive rights of marriage this court outlined in its decision last year?” asked Kennard.

Supporters of the gay marriage ban, represented by former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, said it would be a reversal of the Supreme Court’s own precedents for the court to overturn the results of a fair election.

“Under our theory the people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things that tug at the equality principle,” Starr said.

He also argued that California voters have an “inalienable right” to amend the constitution and that taking away rights through the initiative process is not a revision that alters the structure of government.

The question about what will happen to the 18,000 same-sex marriages that were preformed before the passage of Prop 8 still stands. Many of the justices appeared skeptical that Prop 8 could be applied retroactively. However, from my standpoint, just because the marriages were legal when they were performed, if the court upholds Prop 8, and the Constitution of California defines marriage as only marriages between one man and one woman are valid and recognized in CA, then it looks like even if SS marriages may remain legal, they won’t be recognized by the state. That is what the amendment says.

The justices have 90 days to issue a ruling.

The crowd outside the court grew steadily throughout the hearing, with many watching the proceedings on a giant television screen erected across the street in front of City Hall. Demonstrators were evenly split over the gay marriage issue and took turns drowning out each others chants after the hearing.

Visit my friend Beetle Blogger for her personal account of the hearing today. She also posted the video of the hearing if you want to watch that. Check out her post, she’s got the inside scoop.

Pearl Diver also has a great write-up of today’s events!

{ Everyone Loves Ice Cream… }

ice-cream-cones1

“Our vote was not a vote of hate. It wasn’t a vote against them,” Leatherby said. “It was a vote to support something that we thought was good. I have no animosity toward anyone.”

This statement comes from the owner of Leatherby’s Ice Cream Parlor, and pretty much sums it up for us supporters of Proposition 8 and traditional marriage.

Beetle Blogger reports in her post.