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think it should be done by unelected representatives, bypass voter approval (in the first election), and be based on outdated census information.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.
Hahahaha. You just gotta laugh at these things sometimes.
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?