Wisdoma

The California Supreme Court issued its ruling today upholding Proposition 8 and affirming that gay marriage is unconstitutional in California.

However, at the outset of the opinion, the Justices said this:

“[O]ur task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

If you’re not that familiar with the courts and judicial opinions, you almost never see anything like that stated. It is not relevant to the opinion. In fact, it tends to undermine the opinion: ‘Here, let me hold my nose while I tell you my ruling is in my view stinky.’

To me, it sounds like the Justices do not want to be recalled because of their decision.

Amazing, the Supreme Court has to come out and say their role is to determine the constitutionality of the proposition, regardless of their personal beliefs. I don’t know about you, but aren’t they supposed to do that in every case? By implication, does this mean other opinions without this self-serving statement are based on their personal beliefs and not the law?

I can only imagine the harsh response from the court if an attorney filed a brief saying: ‘Your honor, my client was found guilty of being a scumbag murderer that deserves the death penalty. I am not going to disclose my personal beliefs about the guilt of my client based on the evidence or whether it is wise or in the public interest for my client to mingle with honest citizens, because just applying legal rules, my client should be released.’

How about this: a statement of decision with concise legal analysis, without any unnecessary personal references or academic lectures about the role of the court.

California Assemblyman Joel Anderson has proposed a bill that would require Google to “fuzzy” its online mapping services so would-be terrorists cannot clearly see (at least online) buildings they may want to target. Anderson wants to impose prison time and fines of $250,000 a day for violations.

Why stop there? Banning the Internet, cell phone service, all communications, weapons, and maybe even food, would also serve to thwart terrorists.

How many terrorist attacks have there been in California due to online mapping services? Zero.

I’m sure that if the bill passes (even if not struck down as unconstitutional infringement on free speech and/or interstate commerce), would be terrorists will be saying “Shucks. Now that Google’s online mapping services are not as clear we’ll have to give up our planned attacks and play tiddlywinks instead.”

Usually, such pea-brained ideas from lord legislators deciding what the California flock cannot do, say, hear, or participate in – come from Democrats. Joel Anderson, though, is a Republican from Alpine – a tiny rural county no terrorist has ever heard of or cares about.

Instead of attacking a California success story – Google – our mighty protector of freedom Joel Anderson might want to consider what happens if a non-California based company, perhaps from China, offers similar online mapping!

Whoops. No increased security. Just more damage inflicted on California business and the economy. Thanks Joel.

According to the California Department of Finance, California’s state expenditures have risen from $57.3 billion in 1999 to $104.5 billion for 2009.

That is an 82 PERCENT INCREASE IN SPENDING OVER 10 YEARS.

Yikes.

State revenue (taxes) have increased from $58.6 billion in 1999 to about $97 billion in 2008, dropping to $82.7 billion in 2009. Using the 2009 figure, that is a 41 percent increase. Using the 2008 revenue figure, a 65 percent increase.

Any way you look at it, 82 percent is far, far higher than the rate of inflation.

During the past decade the aggregate inflation rate has been 32 percent.

In other words, California’s spending has increased at 156 percent the rate of inflation.

California has a spending problem.

John McCain suggested during the second Presidential debate that the government should buy existing mortgages from lenders and then issue new loans to homeowners based on the current, reduced value of their home, and at a lower interest rate.

Let me put this straight – this idiotic idea is not from a conservative.

Wouldn’t it be nice if your mortgage principal, and interest, ratcheted down just because your home temporarily became worth less. Or, because you were behind in payments because you weren’t paying your loan.

He wants to soak all taxpayers, including responsible homeowners, to help a few.

Who gets helped? Ah, the golden question.

Apparently, only those behind in their payments, or those owing more than their home is worth, or those with rates about to adjust up beyond what they can afford.

So, if you want a better loan and lower interest rate, better stop paying your mortgage!

Who cares. The lender will be paid in full by the government. The taxpayers (you, me, and everyone else) absorbs a huge loss, and you get a better mortgage loan.

Sign me up.

Who values the homes? When is the valuation made? Who determines if a future rate adjustment is too much? Who determines if you can’t afford to make payments, or are being sneaky and just not paying? Who came up this? I can’t believe it came from a Republican. Oops, my mistake. It wasn’t. It came from a maverick – whatever that is.

John McCain. American Idiot.

Joe Biden said today that paying higher taxes is patriotic – referring to Obama’s plan to soak the “rich” with higher taxes.

Does that mean if you’re not “rich” you’re not patriotic?

Does that mean Biden will voluntarily pay more in taxes than what he has too?

But then Joe Biden had this to say:

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

Unbelievable.

He wants to take my money. Money I earned. I give it to someone else who did not earn it.

The Democrats want to take my money, forcibly through higher taxes, and give it to someone else. Not because they’re needy. Not because they’re disabled. Just because they earn less.