sounds like judicial activism to me
San Francisco court blocks Bush’s attempt to raise MPG requirements because .... (waaah!) it’s not fair!
on 11/16/2007 at 01:30 PM
Ah yes, our very own and dearly beloved Governor Moonbeam. Trust me I didn’t vote for him. This isn’t the only lawsuit he’s got going on that will do absolutely nothing to improve anyone’s life except his. I remember quite well when he put off spraying for Medflies so long that the Medfly became endemic to California. Had he taken prompt action, we could have eliminated the infestation 30 years and billions of dollars in lost crops ago. At different times, he also trained to be a Catholic Priest and a Buddhist Priest.
I could understand when the welfare queen and victicrats of Oakland made him their mayor, he just suits their style, but Attorney General!?!?!? That was a sickening day.
So, if they actually legislate 30 mpg standards for light trucks, would that be empty or pulling the 14000 pound RV?
Can we place a small tactical nuke on the San Andreas fault? Please?
Hey - I just realized I was living in CA at that time too (just 3 years at Ft. Ord, courtesty of the Army) - wow and how cool.
Anyway, if glowball warning is a scam, if dummyrats complain (ad nauseum) about government invasion into our lives - how does the Court justify this decision other than judical activism and that they are the most overturned Court in the US?
It should be like cigarettes - if they are so damn bad for humans - ban ‘em. But hey the what 12 billion dollars Uncle Sugar sucks from the tabbaco industry - not to mention the states who won a windfall on the legal lottery against ‘em, not to mention the slimy ilk of trial Lawyer (John Edwards is their leader) who put a new offshore account in their ‘portfolio’ every time they sue the industry - the dangerous cigarettes won’t be banned. Ever. There is just too much money and political capital to be made in the cigarette and auto industry to really accomplish much of anything to benefit the very citizens these schmucks are ‘claiming’ to want to protect.
It is simply their jobs and pocketbooks that they are protecting - on our dime and at our expense.
Blake, Blake, no no no no! I live here and I actually like a lot of the place. Don’t forget California is like most of the U.S., except for some densely populated areas, (SF Bay Area and L.A./OrCo), pretty much the whole state went for Bush. There’s a red/blue map around somewhere that breaks it down county by county. Very dramatic.
I understand. But by GOD you decent people need to RISE UP AGAINST THE INSANITY!!!!!!!! Yes, I understand there are decent people there. RISE UP!!!!!!!!!!!
I have to go with Dr. Jeff on this blake - my daughter, son-in-law, grandson and grandchild to be are living there right now - not a good time to send it off into the Pacific.
Now, having said that, I do agree with blake - Dr. Jeff you guys need to rise up and silence the moonbats in the Bay Area/LA - take back the state and make them grow up.
Hell, get all the moonbats to stage a protest at drinkwater lake during the next live fire exercise. Tell them that green chemlights signify solidarity with the earth as you hand them target markers. Our troops need practice.
Someday I’ll get over my habit of throwing in a last thought, but not this week.
Quick review - for our government, we have the legislative branch, the executive branch and the courts. Theoretically, the legislature makes the decisions, the executive branch carries them out and the court settles disputes and clarifies legal matters. Here in California, we also have an initiative process that puts the citizens in a similar position to the legislature. So far, so good. Now enter the activist.
Some years ago, the citizens of California voted and illegal aliens were stripped of the right to state services (welfare, school, medical care, etc.). It passed by a clear majority. Immediately, some of our politicians, including our now former Governor, went to court to have the law stopped on some racial pretext and some Moonbat judge went along with it. No rights of citizens would have been lost. No citizens would have been harmed. No legal immigrants would have been harmed. The illegal immigrants could still receive services, they just wouldn’t have an automatic right to them. So what’s wrong with this situation? The law was about our financial commitment to those who are here illegally.
Fun side note. The law was passed after Anglos had become a minority here in California. There wasn’t even a serious racial component involved. Just a matter of legal verses illegal. So, Why did our politicians and the courts decide that lawbreakers had superior rights to those who follow the law? Why were those of us who voted for the law branded as racists when race had nothing to do with it? That is why the Democrats fear Republican judicial appointees. A strict constructionist judge will not use the power of the judiciary to create legislation outside of the normal process. That would seriously hamper the Democrat’s agenda. What they can’t fool the people into agreeing with or ram through the Democrat controlled legislature, they take to court to get what they want and the will of the people be damned!
“...boink Linda Ronstadt.” There, fixed that for ya!“Jerry Brown? Isn’t that the same old pinko hippy who used to ....”
Funny.
I thought the function of the appellate court system was to determine the Constitutionality of laws, not pass judgement on the content. This is another blatant example of partisan politics and legislation - by decree - from the bench.
Next entry: The other, other front in the GWoT
Previous entry: LOST (money that is)