Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Judges’ Category

Prop. 8 at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday

Monday, March 25, 2013, 10:46 am | Randy Thomasson

It’s good, not bad, that Proposition 8, the 2008 California Marriage Amendment, will be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The homosexual activists and their attorneys and unconstitutional, liberal judges defeated Prop. 8 in San Francisco federal court in August 2010 and at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2012. So our side appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, and being granted the March 26, 2013 hearing, is the only way to save Prop. 8 from being killed off.

This is a severe crisis. Marriage and our Republic sometimes seem to be hanging by a thread. However, if I were a betting man, I would bet Prop. 8 is upheld, even by one vote. That would likely come from the nine-member high court’s “swing vote,” Anthony Kennedy of California. Kennedy, who believes in homosexual “rights” (but you can’t award rights based on non-immutable or changeable behavior), still might uphold traditional marriage.

You see, in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case, which struck down all laws prohibiting sodomy, Kennedy wrote three times that legalizing homosexuality does not mean the government must give formal recognition to these relationships.

What’s more, for Kennedy and the four more conservative justices on the high court, the Prop. 8 case is coming to them with a big bull’s eye painted on it. “Liberal of liberals” Stephen Reinhardt, who “struck down” Prop. 8 at the appeals court level, is the most overturned judge in America by the nation’s high court.

Prop. 8 reserved marriage licenses in California for “a man and a woman.” But the legal issues in the Prop. 8 case are more about our republic than about marriage.

Where is marriage in the U.S. Constitution? Nowhere. But the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4 says that each state is guaranteed ‘a republican form of government’ — a government under the written law, not government run by the unconstitutional prejudices of some judges.

And the Tenth Amendment says what are not federal powers, and what is not denied the states, are powers that belong to individual states. What is the supreme law of California? The California Constitution, which, because of Prop. 8, reads, in Article 1, Section 7.5, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold Prop. 8 and reserve marriage licenses exclusively for a man and a woman, not only for the sake of children and families, but for the sake of our Republic.

See the amicus brief of Liberty Counsel and Campaign for Children and Families (SaveCalifornia.com)

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:4-6 NKJV

What I told the media about marriage, teach to your children

Friday, November 30, 2012, 6:57 pm | Randy Thomasson

The media were ready today for a decision on Proposition 8 by the United States Supreme Court. The nine justices met in a closed session to decide which cases to accept on appeal, including California’s Prop. 8 on marriage and several cases challenging the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. No announcement from the court on these marriage cases, but word is expected next week. Then we’ll know whether Prop. 8 has a chance to be rescued from the judicial activist federal judges in San Francisco.

Here’s what I told the Sacramento Bee this week, which appeared in a front-page story today:

Randy Thomasson, president of the conservative SaveCalifornia.com, said he would be “surprised and shocked if you couldn’t find four votes on the high court to take this case.” For the court to deny review, he said, “is basically unleashing the wolves against marriage and the vote of the people.”

And here’s what I emailed to Sacramento Bee columnist Anita Creamer, when she asked for my comment today. While I don’t know whether she’ll publish any of this, I still want you to see it so you can teach these truths to your children and grandchildren:

California voters have twice affirmed the self-evident fact that marriage is only for one man and one woman when they approved Proposition 22 in 2000 and Proposition 8 in 2008. But in the end, the truth isn’t based on votes or opinion polls or mere feelings. When it comes to real marriage, human physiology clearly shows that a man and a woman are physically designed to fit together. Science continues to show that there is no “gay gene,” therefore no special rights or laws are justified for those who engage in homosexual behavior. And study after study continues to affirm that the best environment for a child to be raised is with a married father and mother living under the same roof. Government schools and the entertainment media have done a powerful job of teaching moral relativism ad nauseam, while avoiding the teaching of real science and biology on this matter. And with no rigorous critical thinking taught in public schools, it’s not surprising that the younger generation is confused about sexual absolutes and numb to societal consequences. The truth has always been, and will always remain, no matter what any law says, that if you don’t have one man and one woman, you don’t have real marriage.

See the testimony and logic of former homosexual Greg Quinlan

Visit SaveCalifornia.com’s “Not Born This Way” for facts about homosexuality

The Word of God on marriage

The Word of God on homosexuality

30 years of research tell us, ‘A child deserves a  mother and a father’

These are the things you shall do:
Speak each man the truth to his neighbor;
Give judgment in your gates for truth, justice, and peace.

Zechariah 8:16 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