Posted on 02/21/2004 8:52:19 AM PST by Atilla_the_Hun
CURRENT EVENT/RESULT
From... "Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order Friday, saying conservative groups failed to prove same-sex weddings would cause irreparable harm. In a separate case, another judge declined to order an immediate stop to the marriages Tuesday."
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
In San Francisco, a judge invalidated a ballot initiative, "Care Not Cash," approved by 60 percent of the voters. The measure would have reduced the cash payouts to homeless individuals and used the savings to treat addiction and build shelters for them.
Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay said that the voters had no right to say how the money was spent. He was appointed in 1983, by Gov. Jerry Brown. He has also been reversed on appeal in 82 percent of his cases reviewed in 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
Are you going to sit on your butt in Nov 2004? Think again, today’s decision was made 21 years ago by Liberal Democrat…
BINGO! The anti-Bush people here (who probably are also the loudest whiners about liberal, activist judges) need to think about what kind of judges FrankenKerry would appoint.
This can't be for real.
If this were genuine there would be too many folks inclined to commit wrongful acts of violence.
Getting "the right people" in charge will do little good in the long run if the basic structural problems that allow judicial overreach are still in place. A republican won't be in the White House forever.
If this is the mindset of a large % of the electorate, we're doomed.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." -- Sam Adams cira 1776
Not what I said, read it again.
Though for the record, I have severe reservations about voting for Bush again, to the point where I'm considering a third party. The main reason I voted for Bush the first time around was to check the lawless judiciary. I am now more skeptical of that reason: the very fact that no politician will stand up to the courts bespeaks a passivity that I do not want in my representatives.
The rule of law is dead.
Well you certainly live up to your name. How can a president check judicial tyrrany in just one term with a very closely divided Senate? President Bush has had many of his nominees blocked by the DemocRATS on the Judiciary Committee (not the whole Senate). Repubublicans not only need to reelect President Bush but also elect a stronger majority in the Senate.
Right now it is a state issue in California. It is California state judges that have refused to act to uphold California state law. And you are wrong about no politicians standing up to the courts. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has ordered Attorney General Bill Lockyer to enforce California law. This puts Lockyer between a rock and a hard place. He either upholds the law and alienates DemocRAT base voters he needs to run for Governor in 2006 or he doesn't uphold the law and may cause California to vote for Bush in 2004.
I really don't think it is appropriate for President Bush to get involved in this issue in California at this time. After all we live in a constitutional republic not an elected dictatorship. California public officials should have first crack at this issue. If they fail to act, then the federal government should act.
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.