SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘California Supreme Court’ Category

3 ways to repeal the bill ushering in a Suicide State

Thursday, October 8, 2015, 9:14 pm | Randy Thomasson


I’ve been talking to people about what can be done to repeal the awful suicide-promotion bill that Jerry Brown has signed into law.

There are at least 3 ways to repeal ABX2-15, the dangerous and unnecessary “assisted suicide” law that is scheduled to go into effect sometime next year.

Short-term: A constitutional lawsuit would challenge the California Supreme Court to uphold the clearly written words of the California State Constitution. A just ruling would find ABX2-15 unconstitutional.

Article IV, Section 3(b) limits special session bills to the subjects listed in the governor’s proclamation convening a special session. The specific subject of this special session was Medi-Cal funding, not suicide in any way, shape, or form.

I so wish we had a constitutional republic where any citizen could sue to enforce the clear reading of the Constitution. Over the decades, that right has been significantly and unconstitutionally eroded. Therefore, the task is to find the right person or persons of “standing” that the court will recognize.

Medium-term: A ballot referendum would aim to repeal AB2X-15 by a direct vote of the People. A referendum has been filed against for the Suicide State bill. It intends a clean, clear reversal of ABX2-15 and doesn’t seem to be for organization-building, but for a noble purpose.

Here’s the Oct. 6 filing, one day after Brown signed the bill. The official proponent is psychologist Mark Hoffman of Seniors Against Suicide. However, referenda are very difficult to qualify. There’s only around 2 months to collect nearly a half million raw signatures (the 90-day clock has already started and 10-20 days will be “eaten up” before signatures can begin to be collected). And it will be a long petition that cannot be functionally printed from the web.

According to the California Secretary of State: A proponent has only 90 days from the date of the enactment of a bill (or in the case of a redistricting map, the date a final map is certified to the Secretary of State) to request and receive a circulating title and summary from the Attorney General (Elections Code § 9006(a) allows 10 days for the preparation of the circulating title and summary), print petitions, gather the required number of valid signatures, and file the petitions with the county elections officials. [Bolding added for emphasis]

To successfully qualify for the California ballot, a referendum campaign quickly needs at least a million dollars — and more likely two or three million dollars — to hire professional signature gatherers to gather more than 60,000 raw voter signatures every week for eight straight weeks. Will a multi-millionaire against suicide come forward and make it happen?

Long-term: A state constitutional amendment is the best long-term legal protection against a suicide agenda. The current law against “assisted suicide” is short. Penal Code, Section 401 reads: Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony. These brief words, along with more words that provide greater definition and close all conceivable loopholes, could be filed as a state constitutional amendment. And it could fit on one page.

This long-term strategy is superior because a state constitutional amendment is the highest legal authority in California, higher than the Governor, the Legislature, and importantly, higher than the California Supreme Court. A constitutional amendment, even with its higher signature requirement, is also easier to qualify than a referendum. Not only does a state constitutional amendment allow the proponents to raise funds and organize ahead of time, it has 180 days to collect signatures compared to around 75 days to gather signatures for a referendum.

My take: I believe the best strategy is a constitutional court challenge, and at the same time, a state constitutional amendment. For the short term, getting ABX2-15 struck down as unconstitutional not only requires the least time and money, it’s entirely appropriate and necessary. And for long-term legal protection against a suicide agenda, a constitutional amendment has much better chances than a referendum of qualifying for the ballot. And a plus of doing these at the same time is that a constitutional amendment campaign collecting signatures will positively lobby the California Supreme Court as it considers a constitutional challenge to ABX2-15.

However, if a multi-millionaire stepped up and donated $1-2 million to the referendum campaign, that could be enough to qualify it. Otherwise, don’t count on it, even if a number of local churches energetically collected signatures from their own congregations. Not many pastors got involved in the battle against ABX2-15, so I don’t expect them to eagerly gather signatures on anti-suicide petitions. It’s sad, but true.

There are even those who think it’s possible for the California Legislature to repeal it themselves. This would take unusual leadership by a handful of anti-suicide Democrat legislators, and would require even better and more sophisticated lobbying than this year’s efforts.

That’s the lay of the land as I see it. SaveCalifornia.com will support any viable, principled effort to repeal the dangerous and unnecessary “assisted suicide” law. This terrible new law must be repealed!

Margaret Dore,jpgLearn the facts of ABX2-15 from expert attorney Margaret Dore of Choice is an Illusion:

1. ABX2-15 applies to people with a “terminal disease,” which is defined as having a medical prognosis of less than six months to live. Such persons can, in fact, have years, even decades, to live. The more obvious reasons being misdiagnosis and the fact that predicting life expectancy is not an exact science. Doctors can sometimes be widely wrong.

2. In Oregon, which has a nearly identical definition of “terminal disease,” eligible persons include young adults with chronic conditions such as insulin dependent diabetes. Such persons, with appropriate medical care, can have years, even decades, to live.

3. ABX2-15 allows the patient’s heir, who will financially benefit from his/her death, to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. This is an extreme conflict of interest.

4. Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. Not even a witness is required when the lethal dose is administered. If the patient protested or even struggled against administration, who would know?

5. Assisted suicide can be traumatic for family members as well as patients.

6. If California follows Washington State, the death certificate is required to be falsified to reflect a natural death. The significance is a lack of transparency and an inability to prosecute for murder even in a case of outright murder for the money.

Looks like Prop. 8 is still alive

Tuesday, September 6, 2011, 2:58 pm |

I’m encouraged that several reporters believe the California Supreme Court will, within 90 days, recommend to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that man-woman marriage supporters should have the right to defend Proposition 8 when former state attorney general and current governor Jerry Brown (Democrat) and current attorney general Kamala Harris (Democrat) and former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (liberal Republican) all shirked their constitutional duty to defend the law.

Here’s what I told a TV news reporter today after the hearing:

“This is about the right to defend the will of the voters — and most of the justices on the state high court seemed to understand that. It’s sad that Jerry Brown shirked his duty to defend Prop. 8, which the majority of Californians supported, because they know deep in their hearts that marriage is naturally and exclusively between a man and a woman, a male and a female.”

So be hopeful. All the media accounts I’m reading suggest this positive outcome based on questions and statements from most of the seven justices on the state high court – even liberal, pro-homosexual “marriage” justices, who are used to seeing both sides represented in every hearing.

See this account from long-time court watcher Howard Mintz, reporter with the San Jose Mercury News:

“So,” Justice Ming Chin asked Olson at one point, “you want the federal courts to answer this question with only one side represented?”

At another juncture, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye interjected, “What happens to the state’s interest (if state officials refuse to defend an initiative)? Does it evaporate?”

Justice Joyce Kennard, as usual the most active of questioners, was skeptical of Olson’s position as well. “If we agree with your position, it would appear to me that we would nullify the great power the people have reserved for themselves (to enact ballot initiatives),” she said.

Justice Goodwin Liu, hearing his first case less than a week after being sworn in, was also very active in his debut.

“It seems to me the 9th Circuit has set up a hoop initiative proponents have to jump through,” Liu told Olson. “Given how protective we have been (about the initiative process), why shouldn’t we read the California constitution to offer initiative proponents whatever they need to jump through that hoop?”

Now, if the California Supreme Court rules in favor of Prop. 8 proponents, the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will receive and consider their advisory vote. While I am very confident that the federal appeals court bench will agree and let the case go forward, I remain highly concerned that the 9th Circuit will ultimately rule against Prop. 8 (see my earlier blog explaining why). If that happens, this incredibly moral case will go to the United States Supreme Court, where Californian Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote, will decide everything.

Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; 
but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Hebrews 13:4 NKJV

Goodwin Liu is a bad loss for families

Thursday, July 28, 2011, 2:05 pm |

Many of you have heard of Goodwin Liu, former clerk for Ruth Ginsburg, the most liberal judge on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In May, Lui was prevented from joining the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by heavily-lobbied U.S. Senate Republicans . Yet now, California Democrat Governor Jerry Brown has nominated liberal Liu to replace retired California Supreme Court Associate Justice Carlos Moreno.

Of all the bad judges there, Moreno had the most enmity against the written California Constitution and its original intent (he was the only judge to vote to strike down Prop. 8 on marriage after it had passed). And Liu is even to the left of Moreno!

I’m speaking out against Liu to educate voters on the difference between a good judge and a bad judge. Here’s an excerpt from Wednesday’s Metropolitan News in Los Angeles:

Randy Thomasson, head of the socially conservative SaveCalifornia.com, insisted Liu is poised to “become the new Rose Bird of the California Supreme Court,” referencing the state’s first female chief justice, a Brown appointee, who was unseated by voters—along with Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin—over their anti-death penalty stances in 1986.

Thomasson further called Liu a “radical, liberal, political activist who would impose his own values on everyone else by legislating from the bench, a clear violation of his oath of office and of the specific words of our constitution.” Read the rest of this July 27 article in the Metropolitan News

See the full quote and link that I sent the reporter, which explains things more:

“Sadly, there is a growing group of unpatriotic liars who raise their right hands and swear to support and defend the specific, written constitutions of California and of the United States, but they intend nothing of the sort. Goodwin Liu is one of these un-American deceivers because he refuses to abide by the plain reading and original construction of both the state and federal constitutions we’ve all agreed to live under. No, Goodwin Liu is a radical, liberal, political activist who would impose his own values on everyone else by legislating from the bench, a clear violation of his oath of office and of the specific words of our constitution. Even to the left of Carlos Moreno, Liu, if confirmed, would become the new Rose Bird of the California Supreme Court.”

Please see this signed memo with documentation of Liu’s judicial activism and links demonstrating why he is unfit to be a judge: http://www.cwfa.org/content.asp?id=19977

Yet, in perspective, if Liu is confirmed on August 31, the make-up of the California Supreme Court will not change much. As I told the Christian Post,  “The retired Carlos Moreno … was pro-homosexual ‘marriage’ all the way. So the numbers [on the state high court] would stay the same.”

To attend and testify at Liu’s Aug. 31 confirmation hearing in San Francisco, you must follow these guidelines as explained by the Metropolitan News:

The Aug. 31 confirmation hearing provides an opportunity for members of the public to weigh in on Liu’s nomination. The deadline for written comment, or to notify the commission that one wishes to speak at the hearing, is 5:00 p.m. on Aug. 24.

Requests to speak must include a summary of the facts on which any testimony or opinion will be based, under the commission’s guidelines.

The commission requested that communications be addressed to the chief justice at 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, Attention: Ms. AhMoi Kim, Secretary to the Commission.

* * * * *

“I believe there are more instances
of the abridgment of the freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power
than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
James Madison, U.S. founding father and 4th President