A post by Maynard

On Tuesday, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 83. This proposition, commonly known as “Jessica’s Law”, prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park. It also requires lifetime satellite tracking for rapists, child molesters and other felony sex criminals.

The very next day, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston blocked the measure from being enforced. Illston, a Clinton appointee, said the measure “is punitive by design and effect” and likely unconstitutional.

Technically, this is a temporary restraining order against enforcement. The proposition had been challenged by an unidentified sex offender who would be affected. The lawyers will now wrangle for the foreseeable future.

I get angry every time I hear of another judge nullifying another election. What does our democracy mean if our votes are thrown out by an unelected clown in a robe? Here in California, there’s a long list of such incidents. Prop. 187, which denied state benefits to non-citizens, vanished away in a puff of judicial smoke. Prop. 209, ending state-based racial preference programs, squeaked through after being blocked for a time (and it remains difficult to implement due to ongoing institutional resistance). Prop. 22, which banned same-sex marriages, was passed by the people and then blocked, and the California legislature then tried to pass a law favoring same-sex marriages. The challenges sometimes cross the political spectrum. Prop. 5, an Indian gaming initiative, was thrown out, and Prop. 215, the medicinal marijuana initiative, is effectively neutralized by aggressive Federal prosecution. Prop. 198, which changed California primaries from “closed” to “open”, was thrown out by the Supreme Court based upon a political party’s 1st Amendment right of free association (and actually I agree with the Court on this point; parties must be allowed to pick their own candidates). The usual suspects struggled mightily to block Proposition 227 (but thankfully they failed) that ended the disastrous bilingual education programs in California’s public schools. The recall election of Gray Davis by which Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor was for a time suspended (but later reinstated) based on ACLU court challenges. A supermajority of San Diego citizens voted to save their historic Cross last year, but the election was overturned.

And that’s just a quick, local list. I’m sure there’s plenty more.

Do you see the pattern? Under certain special circumstances, I agree that a court challenge will be appropriate. But when this becomes the normal mode of doing business, then we can no longer call ourselves a democracy. If you read of such incidents in the third world, you’d shrug and figure it’s just another corrupt oligarchy at work. So what do you call it when it happens here?

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. CinderellaMan says:

    Activist judges all over this country have turned the moral compass of our nation to south. To me, the rape or molestation of a child is right up there with serial killing. They cannot be rehabilitated, and will violate some poor child again. Why is this crime so heinous? ( I shudder that I need explain this )… because a child’s life is a precious, malleable thing. These kids end up so screwed up later in life. If an activist judge presides over such a case and finds in favor of leniency for the molester, then his/her own moral turpitude should preclude them from holding office.

  2. AskMom says:

    “Punitive by design and effect”. Duh. Of course it is! The question is not, does this measure further punish those who molest children? It does, and the citizens want it that way.

    We should be asking, why does a person convicted of child molestation think they have the right to EVER be “finished” with their punishment? The victim, and their family, suffer forever. Society suffers forever. The perpetrator, after a fair trial, can reasonably be expected to be punished for life by these restrictions.

    If judges understood that crimes like child molestation cannot ever be totally made right, then those judges would back off the citizens who want the punishments to fit the crimes.

    This is so representative of a Clinton appointee. And just think, in two years we might have another Clinton appointing even more of these dunderheads.

  3. SkeletonLander says:

    I find it odd that validating the constitutionality of a law automatically causes so many to cry “liberal!”

    Has anyone here heard of this document called the constitution? How about article fourteen protections from Ex Post Facto laws? How about due process?

    Just because most of the people want something does not mean it is right. Does anyone here remember slavery?

    The author of the proposition himself cites many problems the language of the bill that would need to be settled in the courts. I think everyone should take a deep breath, relax and let the vagaries of this poorly written law either be validated or suspended based on the most important guide we posses, the constitution.

  4. SteveOk says:

    What this Judge was really upset about was that the people of California actually had the audacity to try and make law, don’t they know that only the privileged few who wear black robes have been given the responsibility to write our laws. We are now governed by unelected tyrants who hand down their law on the fly to prevent the stupid masses from enacting any law that would violate their leftwing dogma. Leftwing dogma is more concerned about their agenda of freeing criminals from prison than they are about protecting our children. The purpose of Jessica’s Law is to prevent these tyrants from releasing child molestors into society. These tyrants see Jessica’s Law as an assault on their empire.

  5. WK says:

    http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/06_Global/061108.nation.divided.html

    A bit off topic but not totally, check out the URL for a sobering analysis into more and more what I am now calling to myself are the ‘Divided States of America’.

    The last thing we are is united and short of a nuclear or WMD attack on the homeland, this division is here to stay. Respect and civility left the building long ago, ideologocial or political differences are underscored by intolerance of our fellow Americans. At this rate, I know this country will fragment by the time my son reaches old age, he is in his early 20s. The debate in my mind is whether the ‘USA’ will fragment still in my lifetime (ie 50), and I am afraid there is a much greater chance of that than I would have thought until about 2002 or 2003. And to the partisan Dems out there, my remarks are directed at all of us not just the GOP. Our culture has just become intolerant of other views, and our external strength is being corroded severely by internal political weakness. Many countrymen think our fellow countrymen are our worst enemies, if this attitude continues, we are all going down the tank. I personally dont think the world can handle its only superpower launching a 2nd civil war, and I deeply hope it doesn’t come to that.

    But when judges disrespect the rule of the vote (Tammy’s thread), this only feeds the culture of decay. It is not too late to right the ship. Because I guarantee all Americans we have far worse enemies out there than ourselves. Those that would only be too glad to see our culture destroyed.

  6. SLABBOTT says:

    Good luck to our President as he tries to get any judges past the current US Senate! Elections have consequences and this is one of the biggest and our Republican leaders blew it!

  7. Rod says:

    It to me is very sad that the Democrat Presidents fulfill their promise to put liberals on the bench but the last two Republican Presidents renig ion their promises to put conservatives on the bench. Instead they think we should be happy with “Middle of the Road”ers. Why have the last two Republican Presidnts not flooded the Senate with Conservative judges the way Carter and Clinton did liberals? To me something is very wrong. And that something is the Republicans we elect. Or at least the last two, seem to be more eager to please liberals than conservatives.
    Too bad Ronnie is gone!

  8. patS says:

    It’s Wonderland here in Michigan over Proposal 2 banning affirmative action. The proposal to
    “amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes” passed overwhelmingly (58-42).

    The pro-affirmative action group BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) immediately filed a law suit. They said, “the lawsuit will essentially argue that university admissions and other government practices are discriminatory in the absence of affirmative action.” U of M President Mary Sue Coleman threatens to sue on behalf of the university to continue affirmative action.

    This is really insane when banning discrimination is discrimination and a state-created public institution uses public funds to sue the state to overturn the public’s will.

  9. piboulder says:

    The reason the court can strike down the will of the people is because the courts are the administrators of the law. If a law passed by vote of the people or the legislature conflicts with the state or federal constitution, that’s the breaks. Not saying I don’t approve of the measures that CA voters have passed, but I think it means they need to work smarter and harder.

    They need to pay attention to what the court is objecting to and address it. If they say a legislative referendum conflicts with the state constitution, then they need to look at how they can amend the constitution to allow what they want. If it’s a matter of the federal constitution, then if they want it badly enough, they’ll need to carry out a nationwide campaign, gather a large coalition of states (enough to ratify a constitutional amendment) that agree on the issue, and pursue a federal constitutional amendment to allow what they want.

    Nothing is impossible in this country, but sometimes you have to care about an issue badly enough to go all out to change law to allow what you want. It can take a lot of work, depending on the issue–because they’re not all created equal, but the Founders wanted it to be that way.

You must be logged in to post a comment.