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.
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.