SaveCalifornia.com Blog//

Archives for November 2010

Will Prop. 8 die on a technicality?

Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 4:42 pm |

READ: Amicus brief in Prop. 8 appeal filed by SaveCalifornia.com / Campaign for Children and Families

It doesn’t look good for the Prop. 8 federal court appeal in San Francisco on Dec. 6. The “randomly chosen” three-judge panel of the infamously liberal Ninth Circuit was announced Monday. The judges were originally put on the bench by Presidents Carter, Clinton, and G.W. Bush. Here’s the low-down from SCOTUSblog:

The Ninth Circuit Court on Monday released the names of the three Circuit judges who will hear next Monday the constitutional case over California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The senior judge on the panel will be Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, a former Los Angeles lawyer who is known widely as perhaps the most liberal judge on the federal courts. Another judge with a reputation mainly as a liberal, Michael Daly Hawkins, is on the panel; he is a former Arizona lawyer and prosecutor. The third member of the panel will be N. Randy Smith, a former Idaho lawyer and state judge.

Let me tell you about Stephen Reinhardt, the ultimate judicial activist: In 2009, he wrote an opinion calling the federal Defense of Marriage Act “unconstitutional”– despite the U.S. Constitution being silent on marriage and homosexuality. In 2007, Reinhardt ruled that partial-birth abortions are a constitutional guarantee. And in 2005, in a sex survey dispute, he ruled parents of elementary-age children in public schools give up any moral objections to their child’s education:

In the last two decades, Reinhardt has repeatedly ruled against the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Also, in 1996, he authored an opinion claiming that physician-assisted suicide was somehow “constitutional.” Reinhardt was nominated in 1980 by Jimmy Carter. He is married to Ramona Ripston, former executive director of the ACLU of Southern California.

As for the second judge, who is described as “liberal on social questions,” Michael Daly Hawkins, a Democrat and a Clinton appointee, gave a wide-ranging interview in 2003, in which he came across as a mushy moderate: “I think of myself as being entirely moderate in all things, but others might say otherwise,” he said. “My judicial philosophy is really pretty simple: people involved in the legal process should be treated fairly and judges should decide cases on the merits.” Note he said nothing about sticking with the written words of the U.S. Constitution!

The third judge on the Dec. 6 panel is a likely constitutionalist. Idaho-based Judge Norman Randy Smith is one of the court’s newest members and a Republican appointee of former President George W. Bush. Smith was confirmed in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. Born in Logan, Utah, Smith graduated from the Mormon-based Brigham Young University, as well as from the university’s law school.

So, if you ask me, I expect a 2-1 loss, with Prop. 8 ruled dead on a technicality. Remember that, in August, homosexual U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker refused to recognize any “standing” for the Prop. 8 proponents. The judge found it convenient to say so, because in an unprecedented action, both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown were derelict of duty, refusing to uphold the law (Prop. 8). If the Ninth Circuit panel agrees with this nonsense, it would be more than unconstitutional blindness — it would be malice against our Republic. It takes tremendous effort to ignore the California Constitution and the record of the November 2008 vote of the people. Both said and still say, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The only practical hope I have is that Reinhardt is the most overturned judge in the United States. The fact that he’s on this panel could paint a big bulls-eye on him for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, while being pro-homosexuality is also mostly pro-law-and-order. If the Ninth Circuit refuses to recognize “standing” for the Prop. 8 proponents, Kennedy and the four other mostly constitutional judges (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) on the high court could.

SaveCalifornia.com is helping to stand up for marriage as the foundation of family and a essential role model for the next generation. In September, SaveCalifornia.com filed a well-done brief in the Prop. 8 appeal under our official name, Campaign for Children and Families. Expertly researched and written by our friends at Liberty Counsel, our brief argues that homosexuality cannot be considered for increased protection, like race, because it is (1) difficult to define, (2) impossible to classify, (3) is not immutable, (4) is subject to change, and (5) does not meet the legal criteria for increased constitutional protection. Our brief reminds the judges that the bulk of social science research overwhelmingly confirms that children do best with dual gender parents – a dad and a mom. We also demonstrate that gender definitely matters to the well-being of children. Finally, we explain that homosexuality presents serious physical, emotional, mental, and other health-related risks.

On Monday, Dec. 6, you can watch the two-hour hearing on C-SPAN, beginning at 10 a.m. PST.

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.
10th Amendment of the United States Constitution

“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’ And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”
Matthew 19:4-6 NLT

Fair districts means better representatives

Monday, November 22, 2010, 3:44 pm |

If you believe in fairness and impartiality — and oppose theft and man-worship — as God Himself does, you’ll be happy about California’s new redistricting commission.

Polls consistently show that California voters correctly agree that the Democrat-run California Legislature is corrupt. But, at election time, most voters go into denial and keep electing these same Democrat legislators.

Nevertheless, the voters’ anti-corruption sentiment resulted in the passage of Prop. 11 in 2008 and Prop. 20 this November to remove from the self-interested Legislature the power to draw state legislative and congressional districts. That’s a good thing!

The first 8 commissioners for the new Citizens Redistricting Commission were chosen on Nov. 18. Six more will be selected by Dec. 31. This working commission is a bold step of reform with standards that are likely to end a number of “safe seats” in California, mostly for Democrats, in both the Legislature and in Congress. 

You can see the problem by looking at unnatural, gerrymandered districts like this and this. The Democrats who control the California Legislature have largely been in control of drawing boundaries for state Assembly, state Senate, and Congress for the last 40 years. They created safe seats for incumbents by stuffing Democrat voters into certain districts. Then in 2001, when Republican legislators made a deal to create safe seats for themselves, the problem got worse.

Now the 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission will focus on a solution that has more standards, more accountability, a clear vision, and much less corruption. Consider that:

1. Before, legislative districts were drawn by self-interested, self-worshipping state legislators who would directly benefit from the outcome. Now, the district lines will be drawn by people who have not worked for, are not related to, and are not big donors to state legislators, in the last 10 years.

2. Before, legislative districts were created by the Legislature and Governor. Now, the district lines won’t be approved unless nine commissioners agree, including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party.

3. Before, there were no standards for drawing districts. Now, the standards in the California Constitution require that new districts shall “be geographically contiguous,” shall respect the “geographic integrity” of cities, counties, neighborhoods and communities, shall “encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant population,” etc. Read more

4. Before, there was no accountability. Now, we have standards written into the California Constitution. And if the commission doesn’t abide by them, there’s an expedited complaint process to the California Supreme Court to enforce these standards. The state high court was good on this issue back in 1991 and is expected to be much better than the Legislature as a final arbiter.

So, be glad. California is in a civil war with liberal candidates mostly winning but liberal ballot measures mostly losing. Most Californians are against higher taxes and fees and in favor of fair legislative districts.

The bottom line: If it performs according to its purpose and rules, the Citizens Redistricting Commission probably means fewer “safe seats” for Democrats. This voter-created, powerful commission is what thieving, self-worshipping politicians hate. That’s why friends of the Democrat state legislators put Prop. 27 on the November ballot to eliminate the Citizens Redistricting Commission and restore power for redrawing all districts to the self-interested California Legislature. Fortunately, Prop. 27 lost and the goal of fair districts won. Therefore, in 2012, there may be more competitive districts open for good candidates who have renewed hope and opportunity to win and serve for God and family.

Lower chance of higher taxes and fees

Monday, November 22, 2010, 2:44 pm |

One of SaveCalifornia.com’s core principles is “financial freedom.” That’s
why I’m happy to report 3 pieces of good news in the aftermath of
California’s Nov. 2 election — news that has tax-and-spend Democrats at the
State Capitol all shook up:

1. Due to a published court ruling that is respectful of Prop. 13 in the
California Constitution, there is a very low chance of new tax hikes from

2. Because California voters have just approved Prop. 26, new general fee
hikes are also very unlikely. (In case you’re wondering, the 2009 tax and
fee increases (sales tax, income tax, car tax and “child tax”) — will
expire in July and December next year.)

3. Because of what you’ve just read, and since California voters have also
approved Prop. 22 to prohibit state raids of local government funding
streams, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gov.-Elect Jerry Brown and California’s
Democrat legislative leaders are only talking about budget cuts — not
tax hikes, fee hikes or borrowing like before.

The reality is, they must cut billions in wasteful programs, in light of the
$25.4 BILLION state budget deficit projected for next year. California
voters, in the elections of 1978 (passage of Prop. 13), May 2009 (rejection
of tax and fee extensions), and November 2010, have boxed in the
Democrat-controlled California Legislature, providing much-needed financial

See for yourself in these news stories from Nov. 12: