Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Judges’ Category

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

Can Prop. 8 be saved?

Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 7:21 pm |

For some time now, I’ve been asking whether California and the United States of America are still a republic and a democracy.

We already know that U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker last year violated his oath of office and attempted to craft a “new” U.S. Constitution when he ruled homosexual “marriages” were a constitutional right. That was a hot August day when I tried to hold the judge to account.

If you follow the news, you also know that Walker, now retired, recently announced he has been living the homosexual lifestyle for 10 years with another man. Now the Prop. 8 campaign has filed papers asking the federal appellate court to “vacate” (erase) Walker’s August 2010 ruling.

Of course it should be wiped out. Walker has proven he had a self-interest, which is why he should have recused himself. Walker had reason to seek and obtain a “same-sex marriage license” as a result of his biased ruling.

Good judges on a constitution-honoring court would vacate the anti-Prop. 8 ruling. But two of the three judges on the 9th Circuit panel, where the Prop. 8 case currently resides, are liberal appointees of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Sadly, I think it’s likely that this second court will “strike down” marriage licenses for “only a man and a woman.” Then the question would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here, I can see a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy the deciding vote.  See my earlier blog, “Will Prop. 8 die on a technicality?”

Why should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Walker’s awful ruling? To review, Walker violated his oath of office in multiple ways:

1.    He had sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” meaning the specific, written words and original meaning of those words contained in the Constitution. Yet America’s preeminent document doesn’t even contain the word “marriage.” Walker should have thrown out the challenge to Prop. 8, instead of taking the case.

2.    He violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Marriage is not in the U.S. Constitution, and is therefore the jurisdiction of the states — in this case, in the hands of the People of California, who have sole power to amend the California Constitution.

3.    He violated Article 4 of the actual Constitution, which reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…” A republican form of government means states must act like a republic, not a dictatorship. A republic is a government based on written laws, such as Prop. 8. Here’s the applicable dictionary definition of a republic: “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”

“Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention…If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves.”
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States

 

Meet California’s legal anarchist Kamala Harris

Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 7:06 pm |

California’s new Democratic Attorney General, Kamala Harris is urging the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to interrupt its process and permit homosexual “marriages” now.

Kamala Harris is the former District Attorney of San Francisco who refused to pursue the death penalty for cop killers. Over the years, she rode in several homosexual-bisexual-transsexual “pride” parades.  She has been a longtime supporter of homosexual “marriages” — even on national TV.

In her action Tuesday and in her earlier refusal to defend Prop. 8 in court, Harris obviously doesn’t believe that California is a republic — a state of laws, not a regime or a monarchy — or a democracy — where the people make the laws.  She took an oath to be opposite of an anarchist. Not! And the children are watching.

See what else I told the media in our new release.