Posted on 08/26/2014 6:23:36 PM PDT by Steelfish
Edited on 08/26/2014 6:25:39 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The trip comes less than a month after Brown visited Mexico City on a four-day trade mission. The governor has been prodding California's southern neighbor to take stronger action against climate change. He's also been seeking increased economic ties, including tourism and clean energy technology.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Prop 98 lost in court and Davis refused to appeal it
187
All too true. The GOPe has aided and abetted illegal immigration ever since Reagan left office.
The 1986 bill, as bad and misguided as it was, at least had some teeth in it. But neither Bush, nor any Republican leader in Congress, did the slightest thing to enforce it. They had no intention to, and of course Bush the younger attempted to ram a second amnesty through.
The current GOPe crop is just as bad if not worse. Another amnesty and there won’t be any part of America that doesn’t resemble what California has become.
The fix was in way before the last ballot was cast.
If you haven't figured out by now the Feds are up to their necks in all this, you never will.
You need to understand, the U.S. has been a de-facto sanctuary country for decades, all sponsored by government, which have several motives for doing this.
They have made this *inordinately* clear for about 40 years now.
Federal court declared it unconstitutional and in 1999 Davis refused to file an appeal.
I don’t need to understand anything I don’t already understand. You need a history lesson on prop 187, the issue I addressed which you got wrong,. I didn’t address anything else.
Absolutely, and most of the country is nearly there already.
No way was 187 going to be allowed, since the taxers are forced to totally subsidize million of the employers employees, from medical care to welfare...
A win win for the employers while the middle class has been left nearly dead on the floor.
I don't think you can.
You’re the last person I would go to to try to understand anything. Use your search engine and get back to me when you can admit you had the facts wrong. Otherwise you don’t have much else to offer.
Never said that. You’re making up what you think I think.
Were done until you admit you got the facts wrong.
Never said that.
You never said much of anything expect what ya repeated from some website. But at least you seem to agree.
What's ironic is since 187 was killed, the results of that and the feds aiding and abetting this epic lawless open borders free for all, the rest of the country is all going the same way as CA. This is not even debatable.
Why is that Mr. libertarian?
Davis refused to appeal it
You run for the tall grass real fast.
Is this your big fact, that Davis refused to appeal it?
This seriously begs the question:
Do you think Davis was ever a proponent of prop 187?
“Federal court declared it unconstitutional and in 1999 Davis refused to file an appeal.”
The judge, Marianne Pfaelzer, sat on Prop 187 for years while George Deukmejian was still Governor and only finalized her decision when Gray Davis took office. That prevented Deukmajian from appealing her decision.
Then Davis and Pfaelzer cut a cozy deal where Davis never appealed her decision to the next level. The whole thing had the stench of collusion and judicial corruption. One stinking political activist sitting on the bench nullified the California electorate.
However it didn’t have to end there. Schwarzenegger had the ability to file an appeal when he took office; he didn’t, because he was a good little GOPe lackey and the GOP establishment had fought against grassroots California voters when we successfully passed Prop 187. Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett, and a Texas governor named George Bush were among the out of state busybodies who fought against us. And locally we had RNC brown nosers like Hugh Hewitt fighting against us.
It’s my understanding that Prop 187 can still be appealed. Jerry Brown of course won’t do it, and neither will imitation Republican Neel Kashkari if that fraud were to win.
Pete Wilson of course was the governor when Prop 187 was passed, not George Deukmejian.
November 15, 1997
A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled Friday that Proposition 187, the divisive 1994 ballot initiative targeting illegal immigrants, violates both the Constitution and last year's sweeping congressional overhaul of welfare law.
The ruling effectively means that, barring a successful appeal, the controversial measure that focused attention nationwide on the problem of illegal immigration will never be fully implemented.
"Proposition 187, as drafted, is not constitutional on its face," Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer declared in a 32-page opinion.
Although observers had long anticipated the finding, much of the judge's decision turned on a relatively new law--last year's sweeping congressional reform of the federal welfare system, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Proposition 187 served as a catalyst for many of that law's far-reaching restrictions on benefits for immigrants, those here legally as well as illegal residents.
The 1996 welfare statute, the judge ruled, "serves to reinforce" her prior finding that Proposition 187 is a "scheme" designed to regulate immigration, an exclusively federal domain. State officials seeking to restrict immigrant access to benefits must live by the guidelines outlined in the new federal law, she ruled.
"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration," Pfaelzer said. "It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."
The judge cited as unlawful the initiative's major sections--those barring illegal immigrants from receiving publicly funded education, social services and health care--along with provisions mandating that local law enforcement authorities, school administrators, social workers and health care aides turn in suspected illegal immigrants.
However, the judge did let stand two less controversial sections that establish state criminal penalties for the manufacture and use of false documents to conceal immigration status.
The judge requested that attorneys submit additional motions by Nov. 28, but lawyers on both sides of the issue said the decision clearly signals that she will soon issue a permanent injunction to replace the existing temporary ban. The final order could come by the end of the year, attorneys said.
At that point, the battle surrounding the disputed measure will move to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where Gov. Pete Wilson and other Proposition 187 supporters are expected to seek a rebuke of Pfaelzer's ruling. Most expect the matter to end up in the Supreme Court, possibly as soon as next fall.
"This is the tombstone for Proposition 187," said Mark Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, co-counsel in the case against the initiative.
Although they condemned the judge's ruling, proponents of Proposition 187 were relieved that the matter finally seemed to be leaving the courtroom of Pfaelzer, whom Proposition 187 supporters have excoriated as a biased jurist who sat on the case for more than three years in a delaying tactic. Wilson even took the unusual step of filing papers with the U.S. Court of Appeals this week demanding that the judge take action--a move that anti-187 activists called a publicity stunt.
"We're free at last!" exclaimed Ron Prince, the Orange County accountant who rose to national prominence as a co-author of Proposition 187 and an advocate of tighter controls on illegal immigration.
But he, Wilson, state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and other supporters of the ballot initiative were highly critical of Pfaelzer's decision to invoke last year's federal welfare overhaul as a major rationale for throwing out Proposition 187. California authorities had argued the exact opposite: that Proposition 187 was consistent with the federal legislation.
The passage of the welfare law last year prompted some in the governor's office to predict that it opened the way for the implementation of much of Proposition 187.
For a guy demanding facts, morphing libertarian does not seem to have a clue here.
Of course I suspected this about 10 posts back.
See #57 for a decent account of Pfaelzer’s timing of her decision and her dubious reliance on a law passed after Prop 187 as her justification for spiking it.
Well I don’t want to pass judgment on him. People who weren’t involved in passing Prop 187 don’t have a reason to be as familiar with what went on as those who had a dog in the fight. It was 20 years ago after all and memories get hazy.
But the way that Pfaelzer sat on her decision for three years reeked of collusion with Gray Davis. Those two conspired to insure that no one would get a chance to review her decision which overturned the votes of millions of California voters.
If she was an ethical jurist, and I’m convinced that she is not, then she should have wanted her decision to be approved by the court of appeals. You never heard a peep out of the witch about the way that Davis made sure that that didn’t happen, and I’m sure that she worked with him to make sure that it wouldn’t be appealed. She was about as impartial as Lois Lerner.
This rule by judiciary is one of the worst aspects of current American government. Why vote? It doesn’t matter anyway. If a judge wants to grant foreign nationals, illegal aliens, special rights they will just order it done. If a judge wants to legalize gay marriage they will just order it done. The joke is on anyone who thinks that their vote has anything to do with government. The real rulers don’t run for office, they get appointed to the bench.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.