Comments on: Governor as dictator

By: Queeg

Queeg — Sat, 29 Jun 2013 15:52:46 +0000

It is healthy for CWD loons to vent…..but….deep down you love strong, positive and progressive leadership.

One or two of you should knit him a royal blue and gold robe….you’ll fill fulfilled!

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Sat, 29 Jun 2013 03:27:03 +0000

HIV isn’t limited to the gay population, so it’s not clear what point you were trying to make. You were far more intelligent as a pillar of salt.

By: Red

Red — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:58:37 +0000

Seems like a simple enough situation to me. Mr. Brown and Ms. Harris have verified that citizens of California sworn to defend their constitution may ignore any provision of that constitution they personally disagree with. With the precedent set that individual laws and constitutional amendments may be disregarded when they conflict with personal beliefs, then I see no reason why the rest of us California citizens should be forced to comply with laws and constitutional amendments we don’t agree with. Works for me just fine. I can think of ALL SORTS of problems that could very easily be resolved without those pesky laws tripping me up all of the time. Hmmmmm. Just imagine.

By: Lot's wife

Lot's wife — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:34:35 +0000

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/

No ones every been hurt by the promotion of homosexuality’s affects on society.

By: skippingdog

skippingdog — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 06:58:12 +0000

John: The Supreme Court changed nothing with this decision. It has repeatedly held that there is no such thing as general standing under our legal principles. My point remains: If the Prop 8 proponents had been able to present even one person who had suffered harm from the legalization of gay marriage, that individual would have had standing before the court. The fact that such a person was never located or presented tells us everything we need to know about the “harm” posed by gay marriage in California or elsewhere.

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:23:48 +0000

The actual ruling is that citizens have no standing in *federal* court. State-level standing isn’t affected at all.

What’s going to happen is a repeat of what the EPA does to evade Congress in Federal court: a state AG who hates a particular ballot initiative solicits a friendly plaintiff in Federal court and then loses by default or by explicitly signing a consent decree.

By: CalWatchdog

CalWatchdog — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:28:33 +0000

Skipping Dog: Here’s why anybody in the state should have been allowed to claim legal standing. The California Constitution begins: “We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.”

“We, the people…” run the state, or are supposed to.

The Supreme Court just change that to, “I, Caesar Brown…”

— John Seiler

By: skippingdog

skippingdog — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:57:24 +0000

Since a Governor has the power to veto a piece of legislation coming to him from our legislature, why shouldn’t he have the authority to determine if state resources will be used to support a legal battle over an initiative? It’s really nothing more than a pocket-veto by the Governor.

By: mary

mary — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 01:07:17 +0000

No fence sitting for me.this is wrong, wrong. I make no apologies for my beliefs.This is just the tip of the iceberg.

By: jimmydeeoc

jimmydeeoc — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:36:41 +0000

“The ability of politicians to kill popular referenda by refusing to defend them in court is definitely troubling though.”

Boy you can say that again.

Especially when you consider the next person to ascend to the governorship following Clown’s baton passing in 2019 to………….why, Antonio Villaraigosa, of course.