<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Jerry Brown Picks His Kind of Judge	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://calwatchdog.com/2011/08/01/jerry-brown-picks-his-kind-of-judge/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/08/01/jerry-brown-picks-his-kind-of-judge/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2015 05:56:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Steven Greenhut		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/08/01/jerry-brown-picks-his-kind-of-judge/#comment-6065</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steven Greenhut]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 20:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=20903#comment-6065</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Bruce,
I agree that there were enormous differences among founders and that the Constitution expanded federal powers after the Articles of Confederation. I also agree that once in power even Jefferson became willing to toss aside limits on that power. My basic point, though, is that the very nature of the founding experiment was to create a system of negative rights in which the government, especially the national government, was severely limited in its power. Liu and his book argue for positive rights and his school of thinking argues against real limits on government power.
Steven]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bruce,<br />
I agree that there were enormous differences among founders and that the Constitution expanded federal powers after the Articles of Confederation. I also agree that once in power even Jefferson became willing to toss aside limits on that power. My basic point, though, is that the very nature of the founding experiment was to create a system of negative rights in which the government, especially the national government, was severely limited in its power. Liu and his book argue for positive rights and his school of thinking argues against real limits on government power.<br />
Steven</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Bruce Ross		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/08/01/jerry-brown-picks-his-kind-of-judge/#comment-6064</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Ross]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:47:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=20903#comment-6064</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;Traditional constitutional scholars understand that the nation’s founders devised this document to put constraints on the central government. They viewed the government itself as posing the gravest danger to American liberties. Not this group.&quot;

Yes and no.  In fact, after the disastrous experience with the decentralized structure of the Articles of Confederation, a stronger central government was exactly the point of the Constitution. The main argument of the anti-ratification faction was that the Constitution created too strong a central government.

Even among the Founders whose pictures you could find in your wallet, philosophies varied widely. Alexander Hamilton, especially, believed in a strong central government. Jefferson didn&#039;t in principle but nor did he let the law get in the way of a good deal like Louisiana Purchase.

Saying that the Founders held an opinion makes about as much sense as saying today&#039;s members of Congress hold an opinion. In both cases, members of the class disagree strongly about a lot.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Traditional constitutional scholars understand that the nation’s founders devised this document to put constraints on the central government. They viewed the government itself as posing the gravest danger to American liberties. Not this group.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes and no.  In fact, after the disastrous experience with the decentralized structure of the Articles of Confederation, a stronger central government was exactly the point of the Constitution. The main argument of the anti-ratification faction was that the Constitution created too strong a central government.</p>
<p>Even among the Founders whose pictures you could find in your wallet, philosophies varied widely. Alexander Hamilton, especially, believed in a strong central government. Jefferson didn&#8217;t in principle but nor did he let the law get in the way of a good deal like Louisiana Purchase.</p>
<p>Saying that the Founders held an opinion makes about as much sense as saying today&#8217;s members of Congress hold an opinion. In both cases, members of the class disagree strongly about a lot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Keep da Peace		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/08/01/jerry-brown-picks-his-kind-of-judge/#comment-6063</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keep da Peace]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=20903#comment-6063</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[You had me until the last paragraph... I thought I was actually going to read an article by Steve that didn&#039;t mention unions LOL.

Seriously, Lui is a bad pick for our Supreme Court for all the reasons stated and more. That Brown would choose him is evident that he has intentions of moving this state even farther left (if that is possible) than it already is. Will Lui survive the nomiation process and subsequent votes by the public? I suspect so. Even though this is one of the most important positions (if not the most important) in state government, few people can name the justices or care what their true role in government is.

Republicans in this state suffer from a lack of likeable candidates. Meg Whitman certainly was not liked, even by the rank-and-file of her own party. And, as you say, being rich does not necessarilly make you the best candidate. Schwarzenegger could have brought a refreshing change to the then tainted office of governor. But, his get-tough, &quot;blow up the boxes&quot; routine got old fast and he attempted to bully a legislature that wasn&#039;t about to be bullied.

Where does that leave us? We lost before we began in the redistricting process where the arguments have declined to near racial slurs between legislators and wannabe legislators. Unless the Republicans can produce a &quot;good&quot; candidate for governor that can appeal to the decline-to-states and the middle-road Democrats, we have no chance and the state is likely to be lost to socialist reform, even while the rest of the country moves farther right.

It is funny that I heard some Dem politico the other day state that &quot;California is a leader in the nation. As California goes, so goes the nation&quot;. Now, the funny part is, I used to live in Alabama (yes, I was a cop there too, Steve). The folks there used to laugh at California and their wierd ways. They weren&#039;t just talking about San Francisco either. Coincidentally, I lived there from 1979-1983. Guess who was guv?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You had me until the last paragraph&#8230; I thought I was actually going to read an article by Steve that didn&#8217;t mention unions LOL.</p>
<p>Seriously, Lui is a bad pick for our Supreme Court for all the reasons stated and more. That Brown would choose him is evident that he has intentions of moving this state even farther left (if that is possible) than it already is. Will Lui survive the nomiation process and subsequent votes by the public? I suspect so. Even though this is one of the most important positions (if not the most important) in state government, few people can name the justices or care what their true role in government is.</p>
<p>Republicans in this state suffer from a lack of likeable candidates. Meg Whitman certainly was not liked, even by the rank-and-file of her own party. And, as you say, being rich does not necessarilly make you the best candidate. Schwarzenegger could have brought a refreshing change to the then tainted office of governor. But, his get-tough, &#8220;blow up the boxes&#8221; routine got old fast and he attempted to bully a legislature that wasn&#8217;t about to be bullied.</p>
<p>Where does that leave us? We lost before we began in the redistricting process where the arguments have declined to near racial slurs between legislators and wannabe legislators. Unless the Republicans can produce a &#8220;good&#8221; candidate for governor that can appeal to the decline-to-states and the middle-road Democrats, we have no chance and the state is likely to be lost to socialist reform, even while the rest of the country moves farther right.</p>
<p>It is funny that I heard some Dem politico the other day state that &#8220;California is a leader in the nation. As California goes, so goes the nation&#8221;. Now, the funny part is, I used to live in Alabama (yes, I was a cop there too, Steve). The folks there used to laugh at California and their wierd ways. They weren&#8217;t just talking about San Francisco either. Coincidentally, I lived there from 1979-1983. Guess who was guv?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: John Seiler		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/08/01/jerry-brown-picks-his-kind-of-judge/#comment-6062</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Seiler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:57:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=20903#comment-6062</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Jerry&#039;s radio show diatribes could have been used against him last year by Meg Whitman. She didn&#039;t, wasting her $180 million on the worst campaign I&#039;ve ever seen. Maybe next time Republicans will nominate somebody who understands politics, instead of billionaire airheads and steroid-bloated adulterous movie idols.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jerry&#8217;s radio show diatribes could have been used against him last year by Meg Whitman. She didn&#8217;t, wasting her $180 million on the worst campaign I&#8217;ve ever seen. Maybe next time Republicans will nominate somebody who understands politics, instead of billionaire airheads and steroid-bloated adulterous movie idols.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/


Served from: calwatchdog.com @ 2026-04-14 12:27:32 by W3 Total Cache
-->