Discussion for article #237810
Nice to see the judge doing the right thing here…it was obviously unconstitutional and illegal.
3 Likes
Great job, Ms. Harris!
1 Like
ACTIVIST JUDGES! ACTIVIST JUDGES!
(it’s coming)
1 Like
Holy cow!!!
Is it that easy to get a lawyer license in California? You would think they could do a better job on screening out nut-jobs applicants over there.
LOL. My answer to them: Yeah, actively doing their jobs.
2 Likes
Good outcome. Though, from the judgment, it is clear that the idiot did not show up in court, so the CA Attorney General got it out on a default. I am not sure that the outcome would have been the same if had actually been litigated given the strong presumption toward letting initiatives on the ballot in California.
". . . he has crossed the line, between free speech and advocating illegal conduct,"
Such a nice way of saying killing gays. Relieved this insane issue has been put to rest and we Californians can move onto other more important ballot initiatives such as forcing porn film actors to wear condoms.
1 Like
The entire system of getting issues on a ballot through paid for petitions needs to be overhauled. So much junk is circulated and fails, so much junk also does wind up on the ballot.
What an easy call. A couple of months ago several “legal Scholars” quoted in the LA Times claimed that the Attorney General’s hand were tied and that she had no choice but to let this initiative proceed. If this proposed sick (and clearly unconstitutional) initiative was entitled to a vote, then California would once again become an international laughingstock. At one point I was wondering if the guy who was pushing the initiative was really doing it in order to focus attention on California’s f**ked-up initiative process but apparently the guy was serious.
1 Like
I could not agree more. It is a terrible process. And even the legitimate proposals are packed full of special interest giveaways that would never survive the legislative process. It is impossible to get compromise in an initiative - they are the wish list for whatever group is advancing the proposal. And, if they are fundamentally broken (see Prop 13, generally, and on the split roll, specifically), they cannot be fixed or modified without a second vote of the people. It is a well-intentioned, but very stupid system.
1 Like
LOL…buggery. WTF does he think he is, the High Sparrow?
Those legal scholars were 100% correct, by the way. Not sure what the contemptuous quotes were for. The court was where this had to go in order to get blocked.
It was an easy call because it was a default judgment. The AG is required to prepare a short ballot summary at this stage, nothing more. I am not so sure that she would have won at this stage if this had been litigated.
The Bar Exam is a minimum-competency test. People like Oliy Taints go to a 4-year bar prep course and call it “Law School”. This guy went to real colleges, but they can’t fix the disease of republican.
1 Like
Got a check book? Your in.
I would like to offer my own ballot proposal–the Neuter-Matt-McLaughlin ballot proposal. In case his insanity is hereditary, the spread of his mental disease and defect must be be prevented at all costs. Castration is the only answer. Won’t you join me, fellow citizens, in halting the spread of the vile malignancy that inhabits McLaughlin’s brain beyond his own generation?
1 Like
It would be just to send this joke of a lawyer the bill for all the unnecessary work he caused the California taxpayers.
The proposal has an odd choice of words for an American, the term “Buggery” is an British slang term for sodomy.
It is very odd for it to be used in a sentence by an American
It points to another source for the text used.
.
1 Like
What kind of bar association and licensing board allows that guy to keep his license to practice law after the guy initiated this petition?