Randy

SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for the ‘Judges’ Category

The immoral tyranny of Democrats & RINOs

Friday, June 21, 2024, 9:10 am | Randy Thomasson

The California Supreme Court has unconstitutionally called something they don’t like a “revision,” removing it from the ballot, and preventing California voters from even voting for protection against more money grabs. More

In the face of this tyrannical attack and significant loss, don’t collapse in cynicism. Instead, fight back by sharing this post. Tell others, “If you vote for Democrat Party politicians, you’re voting for tyranny and higher taxes.”

The “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate.

How would you rule on keeping or removing ballot measures already qualified by hundreds of thousands of signatures of registered voters?

See these facts:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE II (regarding ballot initiatives)

Section 1: All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

Section 8(a): The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.

Section 8(d): An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.

Did you catch that? This is freedom for the People to qualify one-subject initiatives!

So where did a prohibition of a “revision” of the California Constitution come from?From the California Supreme Court itself, beginning in 1978. Yet now, the state high court has abandoned its respect for legal definitions and is grabbing more power.

Specifically, this Democrat-Party-dominated, 7-judge court is broadly defining “revision” to be any tough, single-subject reform, such as no money-grabs (tax increases, tax extensions, fee increases, etc.) without a majority vote of the People.

But Newsom’s activist judges are wrong. A “revision” makes changes throughout a written constitution, covering multiple subjects — which is vastly different from a single-subject initiative such as tax relief:

From the introduction of “The Revision of California’s Constitution” by Eugene C. Lee in 1991 (Lee was “a leading scholar of California state and local government and former Director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley”):

By explicit language in the constitution concerning initiatives and by court interpretation with respect to measures arising in the legislature, amendments are required to be limited in scope. As far back as 1894, the California supreme court distinguished between a “revision” of the constitution and a mere” amendment” thereof (Livermore v. Waite 102 Cal. 113). As reiterated in 1978, the court held that a “revision” referred to a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions” (Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization 22 Cal. 3d 208).

Even a grammar expert with no political reputation knows the broad difference between a revision and an amendment:

“A revision…is a more significant alteration to a document that involves a complete review and reworking of its content. It is a process of making extensive changes to a document, often with the goal of improving its overall quality or effectiveness.”

Under these definitions, The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act was not a “revision,” but a bona fide amendment that should have been allowed on the ballot in respect for our Constitution and for jealously guarding voter rights.

For the current state constitution has hundreds of sections within 35 articles. Yet The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would have only amended the California Constitution in 6 sections of 4 articles (Article XIII): Section 3 of Article XIII A, Section 1 of Article XIII C, Section 2 of Article XIII C, Section 3 of Article XIII D, Sections 1 and 14 of Article XIII.

So it wasn’t a “revision” that was a “substantially alteration of the entire constitution,” but an amendment to the state constitution that only changed “one or more of its provisions.” What’s more, the Act satisfied the long-standing state high court standard of having a single-subject — taxes.

Bottom line, the California Supreme Court, comprised of 6 Democrats and 1 RINO, is unconstitutional for placing itself above the written State Constitution and yanking this constitutionally-valid taxpayer protection initiative from the ballot. They are anti-People tyrants!

The 7-member California Supreme Court has 3 nominees of Democrat Party Gov. Gavin Newsom and 3 nominees of Democrat Party Gov. Jerry Brown. Two of Newsom’s three picks were confirmed by current, corrupt, unconstitutional Attorney General Rob Bonta and two other members of the “Commission on Judicial Appointments,” so those are Bonta’s “picks” too. The sole “Republican” on the state high court is 75-year-old Carol Corrigan, a former Democrat, a self-proclaimed “moderate,” and a likely homosexual.

From the Los Angeles Times 2005Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Court of Appeal Justice Carol A. Corrigan, a moderate Republican, to the California Supreme Court on Friday in a move that is likely to shift the conservative-leaning court toward the center. In an interview before her appointment, Corrigan repeatedly described herself as a moderate and a centrist. She switched her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 1995 after then-Gov. Pete Wilson appointed her to the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. “I think I would probably be a centrist anyplace I found myself,” she said. “I was a moderate Democrat, and now I am a moderate Republican…. I am moderate on virtually all things.”

Can this be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court? A federal lawsuit can be tried, but it is unlikely to succeed. But what each of us can do is tell others that voting for Democrrats = tyranny and higher taxes. Because everything about this is state jurisdiction. The only exceptions might be Article IV, Section 4 “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”) or the Fourteenth Amendment (“nor shall any State deprive any person of…property, without due process of law“). But winning at the U.S. Supreme Court is a bad bet, due to cowardly Republicans on the bench and too much “state jurisdiction” precedent to the contrary.

* * *

So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the honours of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.
Greek historian Polybius (203 BC – 120 BC) in The Histories

Do the math in California’s U.S. Senate contest

Saturday, February 17, 2024, 8:17 am | Randy Thomasson

SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes
and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.

For the love of God and people created in His image, SaveCalifornia.com is reminding voters to do the hard math in California’s U.S. Senate contest. Because, in California’s “jungle primary,” only two candidates will advance to the general election. And every indication is that will be either be a Democrat and a Republican, or two Democrats.

If you don’t want the latter scenario, then the real question for California conservatives is: Is Republican Steve Garvey acceptable? That’s the question we unpack for you at our SaveCalifornia.com Pro-Family Election Center. Please visit and urge your friends to visit!

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it — lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace.”
Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and God in the flesh, in Luke 14:28-32

AB 957 vetoed + new alert on second anti-parent bill AB 665

Saturday, September 23, 2023, 11:27 am | Randy Thomasson

SCROLL DOWN FOR YOUR AB 665 ACTION STEP

Late Friday, Sept. 22, Gavin Newsom vetoed AB 957, instructing judges in child custody cases to disfavor moral parents who are against the ‘trans’ confusion of their own children.

Thank you for following SaveCalifornia.com’s lead to call and email Newsom. We knew this radical anti-parent, anti-religious-freedom bill was vetoable. Because Newsom IS running for president. And he doesn’t want Republican candidates or media or even less-liberal Democrats in other states saying “Hey, you sign a bill against parents, against religious freedom, and in favor of the ‘trans’ agenda targeting our children!”

Indeed, in Newsom’s Sept. 22 veto message, he demonstrated he’s AGAINST biological facts and moral values for children, writing, “I appreciate the passion and values that led the author to introduce this bill. I share a deep commitment to advancing the rights of transgender Californians, an effort that has guided my decisions through many decades in public office.”

So, instead of criticizing AB 957 on substance, he said he didn’t like its violation of separation of powers, writing, “I urge caution when the Executive and Legislative branches of state government attempt to dictate – in prescriptive terms that single out one characteristic – legal standards for the Judicial branch to apply.” Wow, in his quest to avoid being known as the uberliberal, power-hungry activist he is, Newsom’s even willing to sound like a constitutionalist!

Yet Newsom then revealed his real concern — that signing AB 957 could provoke conservative Republican states to pass laws instructing judges to disfavor pro-transsexuality parents — when he warned, “Other-minded
elected officials, in California and other states, could very well use this strategy to diminish the civil rights of vulnerable communities
.”

So, there you have it. Gavin Newsom is against the natural family, against parental rights, against biological facts, and against the best interests of children. But he’s running for president (he’s waiting for the White House Occupant to step aside), and your flood of phone calls and web form messages reminded Newsom how unpopular AB 957 was.

I congratulate everyone who opposed this evil bill — this is your victory! Now please use the same strategy to deluge Newsom with opposition to the other big, bad, anti-parent bill, AB 665, which would permit the anti-family Establishment Left to manipulate pre-teens and teens to somehow “consent” to leave their parents.

Remember, AB 665 would permit children 12 years and up, who are neither harming themselves nor are victims of abuse, to “consent” to “mental health treatment or counseling services” and go live at a “residential shelter.” Again, current law requires parental consent, but this bill wipes out God-given parental rights.

PLEASE ACT NOW: Urge Newsom to veto AB 665 by calling his office, Monday-Friday, 9-5 at 916-445-2841. When a staffer answers, tell the staffer paid to take your simple message: “I’m calling to urge the Governor to veto the anti-parent bill AB 665.” Please also use Newsom’s web form (on the right-hand side of the page, select “An Active Bill,” then scroll down to select AB 665, then select “Con” to oppose). He has until October 14 to sign or veto bills, but could decide anytime on AB 665. Make Newsom realize how unpopular this radical bill is!

Families were created to make up for what evolution did not provide, namely a way by which men could be induced to support the children they beget and care for the women they impregnate. But since marriage is a social invention, we have learned how it can be undercut by people who think that their lives will be fuller, their opportunities greater, and their burdens fewer if they are allowed to treat sex as recreation, children as toys, and income as an obligation of government rather than a result of work.
“The Family Way” by pro-family social scientist James Q. Wilson (1931-2012) on January 7, 2003