As you know by now, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 (passed in 2000 by over 61% of the voters) is unconstitutional and it ordered that the State of California must allow homosexual couples to marry.  Four members of the seven-member court have now imposed their will upon all Californians.

While it is tempting to ring our hands at the sad state of affairs, the real question is "What will you do now?"  There are concrete steps that can and need to be taken to reverse this activist court's decision.

Before I lay out those concrete steps, let me give you a prediction.  The liberal dominated legislature, which has passed so much pro-homosexual legislation in the recent past (like SB 777) without any exemptions for people with religious or other objections, will pass a law prohibiting anyone who performs marriage ceremonies in California (including Churches) from refusing to perform them for homosexual couples.  If (when) that comes to pass, Churches that refuse to perform these types of ceremonies will be subject to lawsuits and, perhaps, criminal fines and penalties.  And this is only one example.

So this issue is not just about homosexuals...

Mike Bartlett finally responded to my questions yesterday, hence we are now moving back to the Superior Court Judge, Office No. 4 race between he and Nick Thompson.

Michael Bartlett is a business attorney from Dana Point.  Bartlett has received numerous endorsements from political heavyweights in South County like Congressman John Campbell, Senator Tom Harman and Assemblywoman Mimi Walters.

As of the March 17 financial report, Bartlett has raised $41,703 and loaned his campaign $50,250.  He already spent $39,875 on signs, filling fee and candidate statement.  His cash on hand is $39,127.

The Michael Bartlett campaign is managed by Scott Hart.  Scott is also managing the campaigns of Kermit Marsh and Jon Fish.  However, some of my sources in South County are telling me that the true driving force behind the campaign is the candidate's wife, Dana Point Mayor Pro Tem Lisa Bartlett.

From securing political endorsements, to organizing precinct walks, Lisa is playing a key role in every aspect of the campaign.

It seems with all of the serious budget problems faced by our state government our legislators can still find time to place more burdens on those who provide services to us with politically correct nonsense.  SB 1729 (Migden) is another example that our state legislators should only be allowed to meet part time lest they get into too much mischief. 

 

SB 1729, if passed into law, would provide that health care professionals must take mandatory sensitivity training if they provide services to "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender" seniors.  As with most of these pro-homosexual bills, there are no exemptions for those with any religious or other objections.  I am sure the option for a health care professional who has any objections to this "training" (indoctrination) is to forget their 1st Amendment rights or lose their job.  So much for tolerance!  Of course another problem with this bill is that it appears to correct a problem that is not proven to exist!

 

SB 1729 is another reward for those who make a lifestyle choice and wish the rest of us to pay for it.  So called Gay Seniors should not be a protected class any more than blonde people, tall people or retired legislators who...

Last year Assemblywoman Sally Lieber introduced her anti-spanking bill which would have made the spanking of a child by a parent or guardian a criminal offense. Thankfully that bill was shelved by the Assembly.

Not wishing to take no for an answer, Ms. Lieber is back with another version of the anti-spanking bill AB 2943. Just like last year's bill, AB 2943 wishes to make a crime out of a time honored discipline method calling for the arrest of parents who use a "switch" and causes the child "unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering."

 

No one wishes to justify child abuse - and there are already laws on the books that allow for the prosecution of anyone, including a parent, who abuses a child.  However, Ms. Lieber's bill goes beyond the issue of child abuse by using vague and ambiguous language to define the crime and identifies items that a child can not disciplined with such as a "switch" a tool used for centuries by parents wishing to lovingly discipline their child. 

This bill has passed the Assembly's Public Safety Committee and is before the Appropriations Committee at the writing of this post.

If...

Now that we are finished with No. 12, let's shift the focus to the next judicial race - Superior Court Judge, Office No. 4.

This race will be between Nick Thompson, a decorated soldier, and Michael Bartlett, a litigator.

Currently working as a deputy district attorney, Thompson has earned the endorsement of his boss - T-Rack and the incumbent judge who is retiring at the end of his term.

Unlike our coverage of Office No. 12, there is more firework in the competition between Nick Thompson and his opponent, which is good.  Thompson also challenged his opponent's candidate statement on the ground of inaccuracy.  You can get more details by reading all of Thompson's responses to my questions below.

I met Thompson only once and was impressed with the image that he projected while delivering a speech to a room full of conservative activists.  Thompson, a Bronze Star recipient for his services in Iraq and Bosnia, is also endorsed by the California Republican Lawyers Association and most recently, by the California Republican Assembly.

As of the March 17 financial report, Thompson has raised only $5,135, but loaned himself a whopping $101,500.  He...

Next up in our coverage of the race for Superior Court Judge, Office No. 12 is Debra Carrillo.  Ms. Carrillo has a long history of working in the legal community.  At a much younger age, Debra was also a police officer for the City of Laguna Beach.

As of the March 17 financial report, Debra raised $5,350 and loaned her campaign $50,099.  By far this is the largest personal loan for a candidate in this race.  Like all of her opponents, Debra spent $23,562 with the bulk of the expenditures going to the Registrar of Voters' Office for filing fee and candidate statement.  Her cash on hand is $31,886.

A registered Democrat, Debra Carrillo is officially supported by the Democratic Party of Orange County.  However, she has also earned the endorsement of District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, a registered Republican.  That alone tells me that Carrillo is a bi-partisan attorney.

The second candidate running for judge that got back to me was KC Jones, a judicial attorney for the County of Orange who is running for Superior Court Judge, Office No. 12.

According to the Registrar of Voters' website, KC will be on the top of the ballot and will surely pick up support from voters who usually vote for the top candidate if they are unfamiliar with the rest.

As of the March 17 report, KC only raised $2,519 but loaned his campaign $35,000, which is a sizable amount.  He already spent $28,453 on the ballot statement and other miscellaneous items, which leaves him with $9,065 cash on hand.

If the KC Jones for Judge campaign is behind their rivals in the money chase, their candidate is sure making up for it by other means.  I see KC at a lot of public events.  It doesn't matter if those events are Democratic or Republican oriented, if there is a good size crowd, KC will be there to shake hands and pass out his brochures.  So far, he...

As the Registrar of Voters' Office is mailing out the first wave of ballots to permanent absentee voters across the county today, many of us still do not know very much about the candidates running for Orange County Superior Court Judge in Office Number: 4, 8 and 12.

So to be more informed about who to vote for, I decided to contact those judicial candidates myself and the first person that responded was Michael Flory.

Michael Flory, a deputy district attorney, is running for Superior Court Judge, Office No. 12.   Flory is running against three other candidates.  As of March 17, Flory has raised $36,500 and also loaned an additional $7,000 to his campaign.  He already spent $37,394 and as of the latest reporting period, is only sitting on $6,731.  The lion share of his expenditures was for the filling fee and 200-word ballot statement.

Flory's campaign is managed by Dennis DeSnoo, a veteran political consultant.  For those who may not know, DeSnoo was one of the masterminds behind the signatures gathering effort to overturn the re-appointment of...

The high court has given states the green light to pass laws requiring voters to produce photo identification as a requirement to cast a ballot today. See details in the AP story below.

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer, 4/28/08

States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court's 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana's strict voter ID law could encourage others to adopt their own measures. Oklahoma legislators said the decision should help them get a version approved.

The ruling means the ID requirement will be in effect for next week's presidential primary in Indiana, where a significant number of new voters are expected to turn out for the Democratic contest between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The results could say something about the effect of the law, either because a large number of voters will lack identification and be forced to cast provisional ballots or because the number turns out to be small.

Supporters of the law...

Written by Chris Arledge

The United States Supreme Court recently decided Baze v. Rees, a case challenging the State of Kentucky's lethal-injection protocol. The Court's actual decision is of limited importance, and is unlikely to take its place in the pantheon of historic rulings. In essence, seven of the nine justices concluded that Kentucky is free to continue using the same three-drug blend that it and just about every other state uses when executing prisoners. This ruling will not send shock waves through the legal world.

But the case is important for a different reason: the frankness with which Justice John Paul Stevens, the most senior and one of the most liberal members of the Court, contends that a Supreme Court justice is free to impose his own policy preferences under the guise of constitutional interpretation.

For many years, the legal world has debated what role judges should play in interpreting the constitution. According to the originalist school of thought, the judges' role is merely to determine what the words of a constitutional provision meant at the time it was ratified and apply that meaning to the present circumstance. The theory is that only the people through...

By: Dana Hull
Mercury News

A state appeals court will reconsider last month's controversial decision that said parents who home-school their children must have a teaching credential.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles granted a rehearing Tuesday, essentially voiding the 3-0 decision until it rules again. The decision will now allow home-schooling organizations that had blasted the decision to weigh in.

"Wow!" said Diane Flynn Keith of Redwood City, who edits Homefires, an online home-schooling journal. "I think the judge recognized that he hadn't done his homework."

The case centered on a Southern California couple, Phillip and Mary Long of Lynwood, who home-schooled their eight children through the Sunland Christian School in Sylmar. The family came to the attention of Los Angeles County social workers when one of the children claimed the father was physically abusive. The workers learned that all eight children in the family were home-schooled, and an attorney representing the two youngest children asked the juvenile dependency court to order that they be enrolled in public or private school as a way to protect their well-being.

Ruling that the parents had no right to home-school their children because they...

This leaves Riverside County Deputy District Attorney John Molloy as the only legitimate candidate going forward...

By RICHARD K. DE ATLEY
The Press-Enterprise

Robert G. Spitzer, whose bid was turned down Wednesday for review of his dismissal from the Riverside County Superior Court, has submitted a letter to county vote officials asking for his name to be removed from the June 3 ballot.

Spitzer, 59, was removed from office last October by the state Commission on Judicial Performance for willful misconduct and dishonesty. The judge appealed, saying the commission failed to look at mitigating circumstances.

While he could not act as a judge, Spitzer's removal was not final until the state Supreme Court decided on his petition for review, which he filed late last year. Word came Wednesday afternoon that the petition was denied.

Awaiting outcome of his appeal, Spitzer had filed for candidacy and was qualified to run in the June election for the bench from which he had been removed. The six-year term for the countywide office ends this year.

"I was very surprised and disappointed to receive an e-mail notification," about the denial, Spitzer said in a letter addressed to Riverside...

With Judge Spitzer out of the way, Riverside County Deputy District Attorney John Molloy is the clear frontrunner.  The other candidates will stay on the ballot, but Mr. Molloy is the only candidate with any campaign to speak of.

By RICHARD K. DE ATLEY
The Press-Enterprise

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down Robert G. Spitzer's bid to review his removal from the Riverside County Superior Court bench. The decision apparently ends his 18-year career as a judge.

The state high court decision also throws into question how Spitzer can remain on the June 3 county election ballot, where he qualified to run for the seat from which he had been ousted. The six-year term ends this year.

Spitzer, 59, had no comment. His attorney did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Eight Riverside County judges signed a petition filed with the Supreme Court supporting a review of Spitzer's case.

"It's a very sad day," said one of the petitioners, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Gary B. Tranbarger. "In my opinion, he was an excellent judge."

The state Commission on Judicial Performance ordered Spitzer out of office Oct. 2, saying he...

By RICHARD K. DE ATLEY
The Press-Enterprise

The state Supreme Court today turned down Robert G. Spitzer's bid for review of his removal from his Riverside County Superior Court bench last year.

The decision this afternoon appears to have ended Spitzer's career as a judge and throws into question his place on the June 3 ballot, where he qualified to run for his old judicial office.

Reached by phone, Spitzer had no comment.

The state Commission on Judicial Performance removed Spitzer from his bench last October, citing willful misconduct and dishonesty.

Spitzer could not act as a judge after the commission's removal, but the decision was not final until the Supreme Court acted on his petition for review.

Spitzer and three other candidates are running for Judicial Office No. 18, a countywide post.

Today's denial by the state's high court came one day after one of the candidates, Deputy District Attorney John Molloy, filed a lawsuit seeking to have Spitzer removed from the ballot as unqualified.

By RICHARD K. DE ATLEY
The Press-Enterprise

A Riverside County judge removed from the bench by a state commission should also be removed from the June 3 ballot and barred from seeking re-election, an opposing candidate says in a lawsuit.

Deputy District Attorney John Molloy claims that Robert G. Spitzer, ordered off the bench in October by the state Commission on Judicial Performance for willful misconduct and dishonesty, is unqualified to be a judge.

The lawsuit names as defendants Riverside County Registrar Barbara Dunmore as well as Spitzer, who filed earlier this year for re-election to his old office and has qualified for the ballot. Judicial elections are countywide.

"Simply stated, (Spitzer) does not meet the minimum qualifications of a judge under the California Constitution and he must be removed as a candidate from the Riverside County ballot materials," Molloy argues in the lawsuit, filed in Riverside County Superior Court.

Molloy is one of four candidates seeking Spitzer's bench, including Spitzer. Spitzer was elected to a six-year term that ends this year, and whoever wins the race for Superior Court Office No. 18 will take the bench in January.

The other candidates who have...

Monterey County just reported to the Secretary of State's Office that the recall of Senator Jeff Denham in Senate District 12 is expected to be certified this afternoon.  It will most likely be consolidated into the June Primary Election.

The State of Washington created a new primary system following a United States Federal Court decision that held their 70 year blanket primary was unconstitutional. Under the new primary system, upheld by the United States Supreme Court today on a 7 - 2 vote, the top two vote gathering candidates, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election.  Candidates may individually choose which party they wish to be designated as on a ballot, without ever having to get the party's blessing. This means a candidate who does not represent the ideas, values, or goals of a party can hold themselves out as a candidate of that party. This primary system also makes it possible to squeeze a party out of the general election all together, allowing two candidates of the same party to be the only choices.

Justice Thomas said overturning Washington's new primary law would be overturning the will of the people. Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna said that political parties would not be harmed since they could publicize their message through other means(i.e. besides their candidates). The majority opinion states that there is no basis to believe the electorate will construe a candidate's "party-preference designation"...

Riverside County's law enforcement leaders are rallying behind Deputy District Attorney John Molloy's campaign for judge.  Molloy is seeking election to Riverside County's 18th Judicial Seat that has been vacant since the State of California removed Robert Spitzer as a judge because of his misconduct while in office.

John Molloy has earned the support from Riverside County's top two law enforcement officers, County Sheriff Stan Sniff and District Attorney Rod Pacheco.
 
"John Molloy is an ethical and principled prosecutor," Pacheco said.  "I know he will be a judge who is tough on crime while making sure that our court system provides justice to the victims of crime."

 
Banning Police Chief Leonard Purvis, Corona Police Chief Richard Gonzales, Indio Police Chief Brad Ramos, and Riverside Police Chief Russ Leach are also backing Molloy's candidacy.  The Association of Riverside County Police and Sheriff, which every police chief in the county is a member, has also endorsed Molloy for judge.

"It has been gratifying to hear investigators praise the diligence, commitment and care John Molloy showed as a prosecutor in homicide trials," Riverside Police Chief Russ Leach stated in his endorsement letter.   "Those who work closely with him...

The California Supreme Court is currently hearing oral arguments in the most significant case to face the court in many years.  The Court's decision will have major consequences.  The court will hear arguments on consolidated cases which challenge several of California's family law statutes, including prop. 22 which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. 

There have been 50 friend of the court briefs filed on both sides of the case.  Advocates for gay marriage argue that the prop 22 violates the right to privacy under the California Constitution.  This argument did not persuade the California Court of Appeals.  In October 2006 Justice William McGuinness wrote for the Court of Appeal "Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when do so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage."

Click here for more.