Last month, Senator John McCain gave a speech delineating his judicial philosophy.  In that speech, the presidential hopeful addressed the evils of judicial activism, stating that "every federal court should be a refuge from abuses of power, and not the source." It's the best speech I'd ever heard him give.

Judicial activism is when courts go beyond mere interpretation of law, and instead create law, substituting their own political opinions for the elected legislature.  The most recent example of this abuse right here in California.

I agree with the Senator that judicial activism, in all its forms, must be curbed. Activism should not be exercised by judges enjoying a lifetime of tenure, but by an elected body who is vulnerable to eviction from office. Federal judges have been issuing rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Because their tenure doesn't end until their pulse does, these judges show little regard for the authority of elected bodies, and consequently, for the will of the people.

True activists seek to make their case democratically by influencing voters that their cause is right. Dissimilarly, activist judges practice a different method, sparing themselves the hassle of the legislative process.

Senator McCain has made clear that the proper role of the judiciary is one of the defining issues of the 2008 presidential election.  He stated that the remedy available to restore order in our courts is to find, nominate, and confirm the right judges. Senator McCain has committed himself to select justices who have an established record of judicial restraint. As the most overlooked, yet arguably the most powerful branch of government, the courts must be run by those who are unwavering in their role as interpreter, not legislator. I am glad the Republican nominee sees this issue as a serious one, and is dedicated to nominating justices who will act with humility and self-control.

Our judicial system can be a fair tool for adjudication when those who are charged with its operation do so with integrity for the process of law. The system gives every citizen the ability to redress grievances and affirm rights. When judicial restraint is followed, our justice system lives up to its name, and provides real justice.

John Molloy and Michael Rushton were both endorsed by the California Republican Lawyers Association for Riverside County Superior Court Judge.

Running to fill the vacancy created when Judge Robert Spitzer was removed for misconduct, John Molloy easily beat  opponents Anne Knighten and John Vinyard.  Molloy won 52 percent of the vote.

Michael Rushton ran unopposed and will fill the vacancy left by Judge Thompson Hanks, who is retiring.

Both Molloy and Rushton are veteran prosecutors with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. 

Regardless of your individual views on the issue of gay marriage, the California Supreme Court widely overstepped their constitutional grant of authority in substituting their will for the will of the people. In an effort to correct this naked act of judicial legislation, and prevent it from happening again with respect to this issue, California Family Council has fought back with an initiative that will define marriage in California once and for all as between a man and a woman.

Below are details from the Christian Newswire:

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot - The People Will Decide

SACRAMENTO, June 2 /Christian Newswire/ -- Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California's Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman."

"The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage's legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign," said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. "We're so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society."

In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.

"The vast majority of research continues to state that California's voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court's decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago." stated Prentice. California Family Council (CFC) is a family policy council with offices in Sacramento and Riverside. Ron Prentice, CEO chairs the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. Phone: 951.354.8362.

As Secretary of the California Republican Party and President of the California Republican Lawyers Association, I have traveled throughout California speaking to Republican organizations regarding the power of Judges.  I usually start the discussion by asking the following question:

"What branch of government do you believe is the most powerful - the legislative, the executive or the judicial?"

I have been amazed by the fact that every group responds that the most powerful branch of government is the judiciary.  Therefore, it seems ironic to me that we spend so little time and resources on judicial elections.  Millions are spent every year electing Republicans to positions in the legislature.  Yet, every law they pass is subject to review by a Judge.  In effect, a Judge will have the final say on the actions of the officials we work so hard to elect.

Therefore, doesn't it seem foolish that we spend so little effort on judicial elections?  Can anyone remember the name of the last judicial candidate they voted for or wrote a check to or walked a precinct for?  We are making a big mistake by ignoring these races.  Sadly, the left doesn't make the same mistake; they have focused on the judicial branch for several decades.  They realize that what they are unable to achieve at the ballot box they can accomplish in the Courts.

If anyone doubts the fact that the left is using the Courts to promote their agenda one only has to consider the recent opinion of the California Supreme Court in the Gay Marriage cases.  In 2000, the People of California passed Proposition 22 by a substantial margin.  With one stroke of the pen, four Judges erased 2000 years of tradition redefining marriage and ignoring the will of 61% of the California voters.

We as Republicans must begin to take an active role in making sure that we elect Judges who believe that role of a Judge is to follow the law not create it.  To that end, we at the California Republican Lawyers Association have prepared a statewide judges voter guide.  We have reviewed every contested judicial race in California. 

The preparation of this voter guide was a massive undertaking.  Information regarding judicial candidates is difficult to obtain.  In order to obtain the necessary information we held candidates' forums, interviewed candidates, interviewed local attorneys and researched who and what organizations endorsed each candidate.  We hope this guide will provide information to the voters so they can make an informed decision about these important elections.

Finally, in some races the California Republican Lawyers Association has issued endorsements or recommendations.  These endorsements are based on the information we obtained from the above sources.  These endorsements were ratified by our Board of Directors, which is entirely comprised of practicing attorneys.  Judicial candidates we endorsed evidenced the following criteria: integrity, superior legal reputation and experience.  Most importantly, all of the candidates endorsed by the CRLA expressed that they understood that the role of a Judge is to apply the law, not create it.

As the only Lawyers organization chartered by the California Republican Party, the CRLA is happy to provide this important information to you.  To view our voter guide, click here.

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 having the right to use the word marriage for their relationships.  Its about their ability to force their concept of truth and their viewpoints on the rest of society in a way that uses the force of law to silence those that have sincerely held beliefs against the homosexual lifestyle.  In other words, your first amendment rights to free speech and religion are very much at stake here.

So what will you do?  Seeing the possibility of this decision by the California Supreme Court, a petition drive was begun several months ago to place this issue on the November 4th ballot but this time as an amendment to the California Constitution.  It will be the same wording as Prop. 22 but as a constitutional amendment rather than just a change in the Family Code.  The important net effect is it will overturn yesterday's California Supreme Court mandate of homosexual marriage.  Recently the proponents of this initiative turned in over 1.1 million signatures and it is expected to qualify for the November 4th ballot.  The battle over this initiative will be fierce and costly. Pro-homosexual groups like Equality California will put up literally tens of millions of dollars to defeat the initiative.  They will out spend the proponents of the initiative by several times.

You can help.  First by being informed by going to www.Protectmarriage.com and learn about the initiative.  By learning more about it, you can inform others about this important vote and encourage them to vote for the initiative in November.  You can also financially contribute to the Protect Marriage campaign at the web site.  I know the people who are organizing this effort and your money will not go to waste or for someone's big salary.  You may also have some time to donate to the campaign.

The second concrete step you can take is to support the petition drive to roll back SB 777, the pro-homosexual school instruction law passed last fall.  SB 777 basically provides that no school instruction or program can be taught that may "discriminate" against the homosexual lifestyle (the term "discrimination" is not defined in the statute).  In other words, NO dissent for any reason is allowed.  The goal of this petition drive is to allow the voters to decide if this law should be repealed.  You can find out more about the petition drive and download a petition at www.saveourkids.net. 

The people of the State of California who believe in traditional marriage have an opportunity to take a strong stand on what the Supreme Court did yesterday.  What will you do now? 

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. I asked him why the voters of Orange County should elect him Judge over his opponent and his response was:

I am a U.S. Navy veteran who served as a Petty Officer during the Vietnam war.  When I received my honorable discharge from the Navy I came home, and with the help of the GI Bill I put myself through college at USC. After graduation I enrolled at Pepperdine University Law School. Once again, I used the GI Bill and worked part-time to pay for my education. I graduated in the top 10% of my class and I was on the Law Review. After graduation I passed the CA Bar exam and received employment offers from several law firms in Orange County and Los Angeles County.

I accepted employment at a municipal law firm in Orange County. In that position I was appointed the Deputy City Attorney of Laguna Beach and the Deputy City Attorney of Stanton. In those positions I gained extensive knowledge and experience in municipal law, which included all facets of municipal government. I was also privileged to work with police chiefs and police officers in their efforts to keep our community safe.

After several years, I left the law firm and was appointed City Attorney of San Clemente. In that position I was the sole legal representative of the City for approximately five years. As the City Attorney I sat with and advised the Planning Commission and City Council on all matters, and my firm handled the City's litigation matters. In this position I gained extensive experience in all areas of municipal law, and I worked closely with the San Clemente Police Department in its anti-gang activities.

In the past 25 years my practice has included the representation of a number of very large real estate companies and manufacturing companies. In addition, I have had extensive courtroom experience in both court trials and jury trials. I have represented clients in virtually all areas of the civil law, including everything from adoptions to zoning matters and patent litigation. I am also licensed to practice law in the State of Washington.

More than 75% of all judges now sitting in the Orange County Superior Court are former Deputy District Attorneys. At the same time, more than 60% of the Superior Court's workload is concerned with civil cases. Clearly, more judges with civil law experience are needed on the court. While most of the former Deputy District Attorneys on the bench work hard and are interested in doing a good job, they come to the bench with a legal career that does not usually include any experience in civil law. Judge John Adams urged me to run for the Superior Court because of his belief that the court needs more judges who have civil law experience. The experience that most people have with the court is during a contract dispute, during a probate or elder law matter, or during a marital dissolution or child custody matter. These kinds of civil cases present issues that are dealt with every day by civil law attorneys, but which are never dealt with by Deputy District Attorneys.

On who is his favorite Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court:

I have two favorites. The first is John Marshall. He was appointed by President John Adams to the court, and he was the first Chief Justice to establish the courts as the one branch of government that has the final say on what a law means, and whether a law is constitutional. My other favorite is John Roberts, the current Chief Justice. Justice Roberts, in my opinion, will ultimately establish himself as the greatest Chief Justice we have ever had.

On which particular position was the most rewarding for him throughout his legal career:

I enjoy helping people, so the most rewarding position I ever had was City Attorney of San Clemente. In that position I not only helped the City in its efforts to grow and prosper, that position also gave me the opportunity to work with the citizens of San Clemente. During my service I regularly performed pro bono work for local citizens, including work for the local thrift organizations and the Boys and Girls Club. I have continued my charitable work and my pro bono work throughout my career.

On how much money does he anticipate needing to be victorious in the June Election:

One of the unfortunate things about running for Superior Court is the cost. Just the filing fee and the 200-word ballot statement cost almost $24,000.00. I don't think the candidate with the most money always wins (Pat Bates vs Cassie DeYoung, for example), but any meaningful judicial campaign in Orange County will cost at least $125,000.00. Many judicial candidates spend more than this. I expect to spend at least $150,000.00 on my campaign.

For more information on the Mike Bartlett for Judge campaign, you can visit www.bartlett4judge.com.

For Red County readers who might be wondering why I haven't put up a profile of their favorite judicial candidate, the simple answer is: they haven't responded to my email.