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

California Supreme Set to Reject Gay Stance on Prop 8//


Thanks for keeping my blog warm everyone!!!! Moving is a total fiasco. Thankfully I’m not a pack-rat and I have no problem throwing things away. We’re finally in the new house, but unpacking is another story. The internet got hooked up today and I’m anxious to see what I’ve been missing on the marriage front this past week.

This was the first bit on info I came across. The liberal Washington Post is of course trying to put their slant on the the Prop 8 issue and the pending Supreme Court ruling, likely in favor of Prop 8, but if you look past the slant and bias, you’ll see that although they are trying to give gays hope that they can take over marriage and whatever else they feel like, we as citizens still ultimately have the power. We can continue to affect the outcomes of the ballot measures and express our wants and needs to our representatives. And we can still expect the CA Supreme Court to respect our wishes, and not trample on our rights.

Here are some highlights from the article:

It is ordinarily the better part of wisdom not to predict court decisions on the basis of questions asked by judges at oral argument. But the California Supreme Court left little doubt that it would reject the contention of gay rights advocates that it should ignore the results of the ballot initiative that, in effect, reversed the same court’s opinion recognizing same-sex marriages.

Yet, as difficult as the likely outcome of the case will be for those of us who support gay marriage, the court’s rationale will almost certainly strengthen a fundamental tenet of the progressive movement: the right of ordinary citizens to maintain authority over their state constitutions.

That means US… marriage supporters and defenders. Should gay marriage supporters ever get an initiative of  their own on the ballot, we can always vote again, and again, and have our voices heard in favor of real marriage, again!!! As long as we stand together and stay focused on what we want, and get out there and vote, they won’t be able to reverse this.

Early 20th-century progressives had a deep distrust of state judicial authority for the very good reason that many decisions were antithetical to a more just and humane society. The relative ease with which Californians — and residents of other states — can amend their state constitutions owes much to the “direct democracy” reforms led by progressives.

When Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive candidate for president in 1912, proposed the recall of state court decisions to enable “the people themselves” to decide constitutional issues, he was responding to our democracy’s inherent tension between judicial authority and democratic legitimacy. And when Larry Kramer, the preeminent progressive scholar of “popular constitutionalism,” criticized William Rehnquist’s Supreme Court, he noted, “The Supreme Court is not the highest authority in the land on constitutional law. We are.

The author writes:

The idea that judicial authority is not ultimate constitutional authority can be particularly unsettling when citizens choose to amend their state constitutions to limit rather than expand rights.

That’s too bad. We, the majority, have just as much right to our vote as the gay minority. Everyone gets one vote!!!!! Just because they don’t like how we voted, does not make our votes any less valid, although they are trying to make it seem that way because they don’t like the outcome. Majority rules in our State Constitution.

The methods by which voters may amend state constitutions, although varying from state to state, are far more flexible than the process by which the U.S. Constitution may be amended. A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court may be “overturned” by constitutional amendment, but that event is rare. It has happened only four times in our nation’s history, and once, it required a civil war. In contrast, in the past decade, citizens in more than two dozen states have amended their constitutions through popular vote to reverse or forestall favorable consideration of gay marriage claims.

This is a nice sentiment, but I’m all for state’s rights! People should have control over their government, not the government having control over the people. I think that the legislators need to take some history refresher courses. The citizens of California are the ultimate constitutional authority, not the court and not the legislators.

Check back for more marriage info this weekend. Thanks for reading!!!