Posted on 08/18/2005 10:00:38 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
And they are using "by lot" as a means of choosing from WHAT pool? Like I said, the criteria is not mentioned. Statistically speaking, this is not "random" selection. Better? Maybe if you are one of those who would like to toss out the Republican platform and make the party more "moderate". IMO, this measure will "move the party left", just as the Governor has said he wants to do.
What you never say is why you prefer the current approach.
I have posted my preferred approach down on at least 10 occasions, which you have continued to ignore. I won't bother again.
Obviously you'd rather have 65% of the state legislature in Democratic hands, and meanwhile find fault with anything and everything proposed by Tom, Arnold and Ted to start fixing the problem (even if it's not perfect), than actually put your own preferred solution on the table.
That is false. I want nothing of the kind. See above.
Until you do that, you're no better than Fabian Nunez.
Why do you continuously turn your arguments into a personal attack on me? The tactics seem to be to attack and deride the skeptical person instead of selling the measure on its merits. People attacked Doolittle without even discussing WHY he opposes it. Why is that? Should we all just line up and salute when your chosen politician backs a measure? Sorry. No can do.
Personally, I suspect this will result in more Democrats in the House, and more mushy-middle RINOs overall. Those are the same mushy-middle "moderates" who will most likely allow higher taxes in California.
Wrong again. (You keep saying, over and over, that you've read the text of the initiative. Obviously that isn't true. Interesting.) To aid you, I'll post the pertinent text here:
[Section 1 (c)(2)(A)] . . . the Judicial Council shall nominate by lot twenty-four retired judges willing to serve as Special Masters. Only retired California state or federal judges, who have never held elected partisan public office or political party office, have not changed their party affiliation, as declared on their voter registration affidavit, since their initial appointment or election to judicial office, and have not received income during the past 12 months from the Legislature, a committee thereof, the United States Congress, a committee thereof, a political party, or a partisan candidate or committee controlled by such candidate, are qualified to serve as a Special Master. Not more than twelve of the twenty-four retired judges may be of a single party affiliation, and the two largest political parties in California shall be equally represented among the nominated retired judges.The parts in bold are the criteria whereby the Judicial Council knows the field of "candidates" that are drawn by lot.
(B) A retired judge selected to serve as a Special Master shall also pledge, in writing, that he or she will not run for election in the Senatorial, Assembly, Congressional, or Board of Equalization districts adjusted by him or her pursuant to this Article nor accept, for at least 5 years from the date of appointment as a Special Master, California state public employment or public office, other than judicial employment or judicial office or a teaching position.
Again:
You: Like I said, the criteria is not mentioned.
I: See above. They're not just mentioned; they're spelled out in detail. Frankly, I don't think you're stupid; I just think you're disingenuous as heck.
Why do you continuously turn your arguments into a personal attack on me? The tactics seem to be to attack and deride the skeptical person instead of selling the measure on its merits.
Your stated reasons for "non-opposition opposition" (with apologies to "All The President's Men") do not withstand scrutiny. You have proclaimed repeatedly that you have thoroughly read and analyzed the proposal, yet then you say that it doesn't specify how the pool of eligible judges is to be determined. When someone is so completely (and readily demonstrably) WRONG, it sorta diminishes her in my eyes. Just a tad there.
As to your predictions about what may happen (RINOs and tigers and bears, O my!): Be principled. I want fairly drawn districts. Do you? I do EVEN IF it means some more RINOs, or for that matter even if it meant (somehow) more Democrats. But I don't believe those bad things will happen. Neither do the state and national Democrats, who suspect (as I do) that this reform would drastically undermine their unfair leveraging of power ... which is why they have ferociously lined up to oppose this reform -- like they did numerous other times.
You must choose. Vote for this imperfect reform, or don't. You aren't going to get a third option this year.
And no, sorry, I'm not for the measure because any one (or two or three) big-name folks are. But I trust Tom McClintock's and Ted Costa's judgement and healthy suspicions about putting power into the hands of the retired judges.
As to Doolittle, I did say why I rejected his "reasoning." Of course the GOP has several "safe seats" as a result of Democrat gerrymandering, and nearly all safe seats are held by liberal Democrats (Berman, Waxman) and conservative Republicans (Doolittle). It is great to have conservative GOP reps, and it's great for them to have seniority. But the price of GUARANTEEING those nice things is too high. Again: it means accepting a system whereby Democrats leverage 55% of the statewide vote into 65% of the state legislative seats. If lines were drawn in a non-partisan manner, overall -- that's the key word, OVERALL -- the GOP would do better.
I like by Republicans conservative, but it appears you ONLY want them conservative -- and that you're willing to let the Democrats run the state and gerrymander its districts if such is what it takes to guarantee "conservative Republicans only." I for one happen to believe that, in fairly drawn districts, conservative ideas can win elections on their own. They don't need the corrupt help of the decades-long gerrymandering that you're making apologies for.
LOL. Maybe you should read it again, as it seems it all isn’t covered in your talking points.
To aid you, I'll post the pertinent text here:… The parts in bold are the criteria whereby the Judicial Council knows the field of "candidates" that are drawn by lot.
Wrong. The parts in bold outline the qualifications, not the criteria or process. How many retired judges will be in this pool? Unlimited? How will they determine “willing to serve”? Will they contact all judges meeting the qualifications, or only include those that volunteer? Will they include those no longer living in California? Will they put an age limit on it, or will 90-year-olds be included in the pool? Etc. etc. etc. The criteria is not outlined. Some qualifications are outlined.
Frankly, I don't think you're stupid; I just think you're disingenuous as heck.
My skepticism and concerns are sincere. Are you calling me a liar, or are you satisfied just trying to paint me as stupid?
Your stated reasons for "non-opposition opposition" (with apologies to "All The President's Men") do not withstand scrutiny.
Really? I think my record stands on its own. Frankly, I’m getting pretty tired of your insults, name calling and insinuations.
You have proclaimed repeatedly that you have thoroughly read and analyzed the proposal, yet then you say that it doesn't specify how the pool of eligible judges is to be determined.
Yes, I read it. And it doesn’t specify (see above).
When someone is so completely (and readily demonstrably) WRONG, it sorta diminishes 0her in my eyes. Just a tad there.
You have yet to show anything I said was wrong, but continue with the condescending attitude and insults. How quaint. So who is diminishing what, in whose eyes?
As to your predictions about what may happen (RINOs and tigers and bears, O my!):
More attitude. I am not alone in my predictions. Other Republicans and conservatives share my concerns.
I want fairly drawn districts. Do you?
Yes, as I have stated on numerous occasions. But I don’t think it should be done by unelected representatives, bypass voter approval (in the first election), and be based on outdated census information.
I do EVEN IF it means some more RINOs, or for that matter even if it meant (somehow) more Democrats.
That is beginning to look more and more like the goal.
I like by Republicans conservative, but it appears you ONLY want them conservative …
Again, not true. But I prefer they not want to throw out the Republican platform as others seem to desire, or be the big-spending type RINOs that appear to back this measure.
They don't need the corrupt help of the decades-long gerrymandering that you're making apologies for.
Huh? I made no apologies. Quit misrepresenting what I have said (or in most cases, stating things I have not said.
In 1980, the democrats drew the state legislative and congressional gerrymander. Even though we were a reliable Republican state then, we had Willie Brown as Assembly Speaker, we had a majority Dem legisture and a majority Dem congressional delegation. Because of the gerrymander.
In 1991, Wilson vetoed the dem gerrymander and a panel of judges drew the district lines. Our congressional delegation was almost even (23 dems, 22 reps I think) and the dems held the legislature by a slim margin (41-39 or 42-38) The judges did pretty well for us.
There will always be a republican foothill district - gerrymandering can't turn the reliable Placer County GOP into leftists. Doolittle should quit worrying.
Thanks for refreshing my memory on this.
Hahahaha. You just gotta laugh at these things sometimes.
We all agree where we want to go. Calcowgirl is questioning whether this road will lead us there. Stop tearing her down for raising questions. It profits nothing.
I'm questioning her sincerity. Basically, her stories don't add up, starting with the tale she tells of having even read the text of Prop 77.
Something you should not be doing. Her research is top notch and well known on this forum. I thought she refuted your ascertions very well. You were the one in error and were impuning her integrity. It was uncalled for and unnecessary.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that she (1) repeatedly said she'd read the text of the initiative, yet (2) falsely said that it made no provision for how the available pool of judges (for the line-drawing) was to be created, from which candidates would be selected "by lot." In fact, as I pointed out by quoting from the initiative text, there is quite a bit of detail as to how that pool is formed.
One may quibble with whether Prop 77 is **good enough**, on this score (how the pool is created) and others. But to say such things as "there is no provision for how they're to be selected," is simply an out-and-out falsehood.
Wrong. The parts in bold outline the qualifications, not the criteria or process. How many retired judges will be in this pool? Unlimited? How will they determine “willing to serve”?
Because only the judges who are willing to serve will fill out the necessary forms promising to avoid political connections for a period of time after their term on the panel. You seem to believe that because there is no text that says, "Judges who are willing to serve will have to fill out such-and-such pieces of paper," or "The Judicial Council shall prepare an application," or the like, therefore it is fair for you to say it has NO "criteria," only "some qualifications." How now, chop-logic!
So the answer to your question is, the barrel of names from which the Council may select candidates by lot shall include all the judges who:
NOT ONLY meet the "passive" criteria (that's "qualifications" to you) -- the "resume tests" such as being a retired judge with no partisan elective office in their past,
BUT ALSO take a step to satisfy the "active" criteria ("qualifications") by committing, affirmatively, not to take office later, etc.
I agree with you that this could be a little better worded. But I could not disagree with you more that the text makes no provision for how they're to be selected, your semantic chop-logic notwithstanding.
Skepticism is a healthy thing, taken in moderation. But obviously my skepticism of these and other aspects of Prop 77 pales in comparison to the continued political raping we are suffering under the current system. The foregoing approach, for all its real or imagined risks, was closely patterned on an approach that, by nearly all accounts, has worked well (in the sense of avoiding gerrymandering and resulting "leverage" as is occurring in California, at least) in Iowa and Oregon. I'm for giving it a try -- and for fixing its imperfections in elections to come.
You have made it clear that you prefer the current "safe seats" approach, whereby 55% of the statewide vote is leveraged into a 65% legislative majority for Democrats BUT creates largely solid-conservative GOP districts, to Prop 77.
I prefer they not want to throw out the Republican platform as others seem to desire, or be the big-spending type RINOs that appear to back this measure.
Ted Costa and Tom McClintock are RINOs now? Maybe they meet your qualifications for that label. But what are your criteria?
calcowgirl, I apologize for my insulting remarks earlier. I still think you're as completely wrong about this measure as you think I am about it. And I DO think you tend to bring an "advocate"-type of spin to the table, instead of speaking in terms of what is good about Prop 77 along with what is questionable about it.
However, I had no grounds to insult you, including by questioning your sincerity. You're obviously a smart cookie. It just pains me to no end that, because of what I view as misguided skepticism on this particular issue, we're going to lose yet another chance at de-gerrymandering, and suffer for at least another 5 years under the currect corrupt approach. That the current approach happens to guarantee a few safe, conservative GOP seats is nice, but it's insufficient consolation to me.
I will try to argue more civilly in the future.
Personally I have no faith in the judges to de-gerrymander this state either. We had judges set the districts before with the same results. I understand your hope for change. I just don't see it coming, prop 77 or not.
FOG724--thanks for backing me up on this thread. I hadn't realized it was still active until today.
More insults, and you don’t have the guts to even put me on the ping. By questioning my sincerity, you are basically calling me a liar. I think it is quite obvious that I have read this measure. What “tale” are you speaking of? I have refuted your allegations numerous times now, but you continue with this slander. Enough, already!
To any thinking adult, I think it is obvious that I have indeed read this measure.
…yet (2) falsely said that it made no provision for how the available pool of judges (for the line-drawing) was to be created, from which candidates would be selected "by lot." In fact, as I pointed out by quoting from the initiative text, there is quite a bit of detail as to how that pool is formed.
Falsely? Please read Post 22 again. There is nothing false in what I have posted.
One may quibble with whether Prop 77 is **good enough**, on this score (how the pool is created) and others. But to say such things as "there is no provision for how they're to be selected," is simply an out-and-out falsehood.
Falsehood? More behind the back slander from you. See post 22.
There was an apology in post 32.
What a start! Notwithstanding, thank you for your reply, even though it is four days later. I note that you were a bit tied up by other important news on the Batman thread.
Wrong. The parts in bold outline the qualifications, not the criteria or process. How many retired judges will be in this pool? Unlimited? How will they determine “willing to serve”?
Because only the judges who are willing to serve will fill out the necessary forms promising to avoid political connections for a period of time after their term on the panel. You seem to believe that because there is no text that says, "Judges who are willing to serve will have to fill out such-and-such pieces of paper," or "The Judicial Council shall prepare an application," or the like, therefore it is fair for you to say it has NO "criteria," only "some qualifications." How now, chop-logic!
No. That is not what I believe. Had you quoted me in context, that would be quite clear. Instead, you misrepresent my statements and continue the insults calling it “Chop-Logic.” I note that you cut off the various other questions I posted regarding criteria and process that are not included in the text of the measure. For the record, here is what I said again:
Wrong. The parts in bold outline the qualifications, not the criteria or process. How many retired judges will be in this pool? Unlimited? How will they determine “willing to serve”? Will they contact all judges meeting the qualifications, or only include those that volunteer? Will they include those no longer living in California? Will they put an age limit on it, or will 90-year-olds be included in the pool? Etc. etc. etc. The criteria is not outlined. Some qualifications are outlined.
I agree with you that this could be a little better worded. But I could not disagree with you more that the text makes no provision for how they're to be selected, your semantic chop-logic notwithstanding.
”Chop-logic.” There you go again.
You have made it clear that you prefer the current "safe seats" approach, whereby 55% of the statewide vote is leveraged into a 65% legislative majority for Democrats BUT creates largely solid-conservative GOP districts, to Prop 77.
No. I do not prefer that, as I have said on numerous occasions, including this thread. Please STOP misrepresenting me!
I prefer they not want to throw out the Republican platform as others seem to desire, or be the big-spending type RINOs that appear to back this measure.
Ted Costa and Tom McClintock are RINOs now? Maybe they meet your qualifications for that label. But what are your criteria?
No, I did not say or imply that. More misrepresentation by you.
You said: “I like by [SIC] Republicans conservative, but it appears you ONLY want them conservative … “I was referring to Republicans, not isolated to those who have voiced support for this measure. I certainly did not say that anyone supporting this measure is in favor of throwing out the Republican platform and a big-spending type. Many backers do, however, fit that description.I responded: “Again, not true. I prefer they not want to throw out the Republican platform as others seem to desire, or be the big-spending type RINOs that appear to back this measure.”
Thank you for the apology. After reading all your additional insults and slander on this thread (that I was not pinged to), some posted only 15 minutes earlier than your apology, that is as gracious as I can be.
Thanks. After reading all the other posts, I'm still cooling down.
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.