A Conversation With Tom McClintock (Would take Proposition #187 back to court)

Human Events ^ | August 28th, 2003 | Human Events Editorial Board

[jokar]

Constitutionalist ping.

[jokar]

PING! TODAY!
California's First Live Town Hall Meeting
August 28, 2003 at Thursday 3:00PM

Senator McClintock to host Roger Hedgecock Show,
You can listen online @ http://www.kogo.com or AM 600 in San Diego
Thanks to Kellynla.

[janetgreen]

McClintock has my vote, and I'll spread the word to everyone I know that he's willing to revive Prop 187. The welfare magnet must stop or we'll sink (actually we're already sinking).

[janetgreen]

McClintock has my vote, and I'll spread the word to everyone I know that he's willing to revive Prop 187. The welfare magnet must stop or we'll sink (actually we're already sinking).

[pogo101]

I don't know how the district court ruling came about. If it's a preliminary injunction against 187, and then the case itself was dropped by Davis and Lockyer, there is a decent chance that a challenge will still be able to be mounted.

As for what courts are involved, the best bet is the federal district court the original injunction came down in

I didn't know the details myself, so I scrounged around to try to find out more.

To your first comment: the case is League of United Latin American Citizens ("LULAC") v. Wilson, number CV 94-07569 MRP (JR). The MRP signifies its random assignment upon filing -- on Wed., Nov. 9, 1994, the day after 187's 59%-41% passage -- to now-senior district judge Marianna R. Pfaelzer.

Plaintiffs sought a TRO. On November 16, in Pfaelzer's absence and after a hearing, district judge Wm. Matthew Byrne entered that TRO as to most of Prop 187's provisions. Pfaelzer herself entered preliminary injunction on December 14, 1994 after another hearing. That preliminary injunction remained in effect until a final judgment in the case. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment in May 1995; Pfaelzer granted most but not all of that motion in November 1995 (see 908 F.Supp. 755 (C.D. Cal. 1995)); and the litigation rolled glacially onward, with preliminary injunction remaining in place.

In February 1997, some immigration-reform groups sought to intervene, but Pfaelzer denied that motion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, essentially concluding that the would-be intervenors had waited too long after the start of the case (27 months) before seeking to intervene. See 131 F.3d 1297 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pfaelzer entered judgment granting a permanent injunction on March 13, 1998. Save for a few loose ends like attorneys' fee motions, that judgment was the last word at the district court level.

At the 9th Circus level, where the appeal was begun promptly enough (in April '98) as No. 98-55671, the court didn't even set a briefing schedule until July '98, and that schedule called for submissions between Nov. '98 and Feb. '99. By then, of course, Davis was governor, and so in April, the state filed for mediation. Sensing that Davis/Lockyer were going to bury the appeal, at least one of the immigration groups that'd sought to intervene previously (see above) tried again and failed.

By July '99, the parties had stipulated to dismiss the appeal "without prejudice to reinstatement only in the event the [district court] disapproves the stipulation on or before 9/30/99." Pfaelzer approved it on September 13, 1999.

As to the likely choreography, there's no need for a new individual plaintiff. The plaintiffs to LULAC v. Wilson can themselves move the court for a postjudment enforcement order seeking sanctions or even contempt (which can carry jail time). The state (McClintock) could try to appeal, I suppose, but the 9th Circus almost certainly will say Nope, Res Judicata. McClintock then can petition SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari, but probably only as to the is-this-really-res-judicata question, not (yet) as to the merits of 187.

[DoughtyOne]

Well, get ready for the revisionists who will pretend that Bill Simon was even a tenth as forthright, therefore "conservatives can't win in California."

I would agree that Simon wasn't 1/10th as good as McClintock.  Like you, I would not agree that a conservative cannot get elected.  There are several things that make that a difficult proposition though.  First, any Republican candidate (Simon an excellent example) should receive state and when possible national level support.  Simon recieved every little of either.  IMO, this is what cost him the election.  True enough, I didn't particularly care for his campaign, but with more state and national party funds, he could have raised the level of his campaign.  That's the point.  If McClintock were the lead man going into this election, would the state abandon him because they had wanted Schwarzenegger, like they did Simon because they wanted Riordan?  Then there's the issue of a spoiler.  When you get a RINO like Schwarzenegger in the mix, a RINO that is wildly popular with the public, it makes it very difficult for a guy like McClintock to pull in the support he must have to win.

Precisely due to the fact that the popular RINO will  draw votes from both quarters, some dems and some republicans, he becomes a very large obsticle to a true Conservative's advancement.

In this election I think McClintock has gotten a lot more coverage than I would have expected for a true Conservative.  I have wondered if he would have gotten that coverage if it weren't for the leftist media wanting to take Schwarzenegger down a notch or two for Bustamante.  Butstamante contrasts much better against McClintock.  I think he'd much rather run against someone he can demagogue to the max.  With Schwarzenegger, a man you guys have pointed out shares some of Bustamante's views on certain topics, it's going to be very difficult for Bustamante to place a wedge between him and the more liberal voting block.

The liberal voting block is concerned with social issues.  Well Schwarzenegger isn't a threat there.  And frankly that concerns us.  This isn't something I relish, but the fact is, even liberals discern a need for fiscal conservancy at this time.  With liberal issues not a concern and Schwarzenegger a fiscal conservative by appearances, the left will vote for this guy.  As some have pointed out, he'd have made a cracker jack democrat.  Unfortunately he jumped in on our side and we have to deal with that.

McClintock:  A rock solid conservative that correctly addresses every issue that concerns them (including me)
Schwarzenegger:  A somewhat Conservative fiscal stance with clearly liberal leanings on social issues and even some economic issues
Bustamante: A brown racist separatist who's policies are antithecal to anything a Conservative stands for

This is what voters will be assessing.  With A.S. in the mix, this is going to be a rocky road for real Conservatives

Republican Senatorial, Gubernatorial, and Presidential candidates, whether conservative or moderate, who are too timid to address California's massive problem with Illegals have failed to win here in every election since Pete Wilson won in 1994.

And that has cost them a lot of support.  I just can't fathom why ANY "Conservative" candidate would fail to endorse a set of policies that would appeal to the voters of Proposition 187, which passed by a large margin.

I'd go further than you did.  It is insulting that those candidates abandon talk of just about any Conservative values during the election process.  Ronald Reagan championed Conservatism.  He won converts!  The folks we have today are almost embarassed to be caught advocating core Conservative values.  McClintock is the first person in a long time who clearly gets it.  And I believe he will win converts to Conservatism.  No salesman sells product unless he makes a pitch.  For far too long Conservatives have failed to make that pitch.  McClintock is doing the right thing on the right issues.  Good for him.  Good for us.  Good for our future.

Laughably, these self-congratulatory, so-called "political realists" hold Wilson up as an example of how to lose in California; nevermind that Wilson won at the top of the GOP's statewide ticket (Senatorial and Gubernatorial) four times from 1982 to 1994.

I am a political realist.  I'm not laughing.  I'm not sure how anyone could use Pete Wilson as an example of a loser.  He served two terms as governor.  I did not support his candidacy for President.  He was too much a RINO for my liking.  And as for Pete losing based on the fact he endorced Proposition 187, I don't know how a guy could be effected negatively by supporting something 60% of California supported.

This hasn't stopped the media from making that claim several times over the last few weeks.  I've also seen them refer to him as Senator Wilson when his last held office was Governor.  That seems inappropriate.

[pogo101]

I think we agree. I mean "third rail" not in the sense of not being talked about (by Arnold et al.) but more in the sense of Social Security: "don't touch it."

[DoughtyOne]

I'm not entirely sure you're wrong on that. Perhaps you aren't. The battle cry for about five years has been to appeal this to the Supreme Court. I thought the Prop had been addressed by the Ninth Circuit Court.

[moehoward]

Aside from the licenses for Illegal's issue. It is obvious that we could expect the "same old, same old" from Arnold on the Illegal Alien issue.

McClintock is the man to draw the line in CA on the Illegal Alien invasion. The rest of the states will follow likewise.

[Jeff Head]

If I lived in California...this guy would get my vote, period.

I wish and pray for his success.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

See the difference between a candidate with conviction and principle, as opposed to one who merely spouts off whatever lines have been fed to him by his handlers and focus groups?

35 posted on 08/28/2003 9:43 AM PDT by ambrose (do you even CARE that the USA is being overrun with illegal aliens?)

After my pumping the same issues McClintock is, for the last five years on this forum, I'd think you'd find that statement unworthy of posting to the forum.  You haven't seem me on the anti-illegal alien threads?  LMAO  Bud, reality check.  I support 100% of McClintock's policies.

[navyblue]

"McClintock is the man to draw the line in CA on the Illegal Alien invasion. The rest of the states will follow likewise."

Ooooh! Dangerous stuff you're sprouting there guy! Don't let Karl Rove hear you say that or you'll never be welcome at the White House again. /sarcasm

[ambrose]

Yes, yes... but CA could have a Gov. McClintock. If not '03, then what about in '06?

If Ahnold comes in and Clintonizes the Republican Party, then all bets are off. We'd be doomed.

[Jeff Head]

Read this interview and these statements from McClintock.

God grant us more such statesmen. I intentionally did not say politician because I do not believe, with these positions, that this guy is playing politics...he's actually looking out for the welfare of his state, as he took an oath to do.

I would vote for him in an instant ove rall the others currently on that ballot if I lived in CA.

[Nephi]

For California's sake, I hope McClintock wins. For the country's sake, I hope McClintock wins. It would be great for the country to see a real conservative in action.

[navyblue]

Re your tag line:

In my opinion, it's not that people don't care. It's because they're all walking around with blinders on. Too involved with their own particular lifestyle. Thier 401K's, their vacations, their families etc. Fact is, they simply do not see what is going on in plain sight. Guess it's a "forest for the trees" thing.

Or as a friend told me: ''I don't sweat the small stuff! And anything else besides my business is the small stuff"

[Sabertooth]

If I lived in California...this guy would get my vote, period. I wish and pray for his success

Watch what happens to the polls after the debates, even if Arnold's handlers keep him out.

How many times in our lives do we get the chance to vote for someone like Tom McClintock?

And I'm supposed to blow the opporunity on an actor whose movies have mostly stunk for the past decade?

[hoosierskypilot]

California is already in the toilet

I'm afraid you're right. No common-sense political candidate has a prayer in CA. The state is dominated by deviants, perverts and reprobates. There are some good people here, but their numbers are so small as to be insignificant.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

Yes, yes... but CA could have a Gov. McClintock. If not '03, then what about in '06?

If Ahnold comes in and Clintonizes the Republican Party, then all bets are off. We'd be doomed.

53 posted on 08/28/2003 10:51 AM PDT by ambrose (do you even CARE that the USA is being overrun with illegal aliens?)
 

Have you ever heard the term "It's useless to beat a dead horse"?  For some reason you are not making a connection here.

I and other Schwarzenegger "DEFENDERS" have promised to vote for McClintock if he can raise his numbers.  What more can I say to you other than that you've got my vote if our number one guy is viable?  But this just isn't good enough for you.  You slander, insult and demand that I confirm my vote for McClintock even if you and I are the only two people who do so.  How many times can I say, NO SALE.

I voted for McClintock in the Freeper pole both times.  If asked by a poll, I would state that I am voting for McClintock.  I plan on pushing a McClintock victory as much as I can.  There is only so much we can do.  Is this beyond your ability to reason?

There are more dynamics at play here than just republican vs democrat this time.  With what we both acknowledge is a RINO in the mix, everything is wide open.

On this thread I've tried to explain that.  I've made a rational reasonable attempt to explain it to you and others, but you don't want to confront it.  Okay, don't.

There are things at play here that neither you and I wish for, want to support or feel comfortable supporting.  The fact still remains, on October 7th, if I have no other viable choice, I will vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger.

There is not one chance in this universe that I'll throw my vote away, or not make one, if it would facilite the election of Cruz Bustamante.

This isn't a personal grudge between you and I.  I'm not doing this out of spite.  I would love to see Tom elected.  What part of this are you incapable of understanding?

[DoughtyOne]

That simply isn't true. Proposition 187 passed by a large margin. So did Propostion 209. There's another one, I think it was 27 that also passed.

Thank God for the initiative process in California. Without Conservative leadership from the Californai republican party leadership for the last fifteen years or so, Californians none the less propose and pass Conservative policy.

There are a lot of Conservatives in the state. There just aren't any Republican leaders to promote their cause. The compassionate conservative is their motto (in spirit). Now that is depressing, but it's simply not accurate to trash the states Conservative presence, simply because the republican party leadership has had it's head firmly implanted for the last 15 years or so.