Oh, and even worse. You’d like it to be a decision, but it was only an OPINION. So BAAAP again.
"CASE NO. CV 94-7569 MRP
OPINION"
Next contestant? Gotta steak dinner in LA for any winners. You provide transport 
An appellate court’s decision is always styled “opinion.” There can also be a “dissenting opinion” from a judge who disagrees but doesn’t carry a majority; and a “concurring opinion” from a judge who agrees but wants to state his/her reasons differently than the main opinion. The latter two cannot be cited as authority, but an appellate attorney might quote them in a brief as persuasive.
Well, whatever you call it, the fact is that Wilson went down and the Davis administration shelved the whole measure, even though in your precious “opinion” it was admitted that portions of the measure might indeed be constitutional. Did the State fulfil it’s mandate to persue the wishes of the voter to the full extent? I think not. Niether did the voters that put Ahhnold into office. Therefore, the whole measure was never rejected in any opinion, decision, or otherwise.
What were they afraid of that it couldn’t even be discussed in the light of day? Maybe they were afraid of what is happening now. Chaos in the streets and demands to legalize the lawless. To bring it full circle, we have our new Mayor linking hands and singing Koom By Ya with the lawbreakers. Build the Subway, asshat.
Steak dinner stands.
And a reading of the “opinion” reveals that the court agees with me and not with Mr. Davis and his cabal:
"The Court is therefore convinced that if
the voters had known that some of the initiative’s provisions would be
held invalid, they would have preferred the implementation of the
remaining portions, rather than the invalidation of the entire
initiative. Any provisions of Proposition 187 found to be invalid are
volitionally severable from the remainder. "
The court further held:
"The provisions which have the
permissible purpose and effect of denying state-funded benefits to
persons who are unlawfully present in the United States are not a
regulation of immigration and therefore survive the first De Canas
test. "
With regards to section 8:
"Subsection 8©, like the reporting requirements in sections 5 and 6,
cannot survive because it has no purpose other than to regulate
immigration. On the other hand, subsections (a) and (b), like the
denial of benefits in sections 5 and 6, are not regulations of
immigration since they do not amount to determinations of who may and
may not remain in this country. In the absence of subsection ©’s
reporting requirements, the verification components of subsections (a)
and (b) are permissible because their only purpose is to determine who
may and who may not receive postsecondary education. Also, the
verification components of subsections (a) and (b) are tied to federal
standards rather than to an impermissible state classification scheme.
Because subsections (a) and (b) may be implemented by requiring state
actors to rely on federal determinations rather than their own
independent determinations of immigration status to deny public
postsecondary education, subsections (a) and (b) are not preempted
under the first De Canas test.
The final question is whether subsection © is functionally,
volitionally and grammatically severable from the remaining provisions
of section 8. Since the absence of the impermissible reporting
requirements does not impair the state’s ability to deny public
postsecondary education, subsection © is functionally severable.
Subsection © is grammatically severable because the removal of
subsection © does not render the remaining provisions of section 8
unintelligible. Finally, because it is reasonable to conclude that the
electorate would have preferred the implementation of the remaining
provisions rather than the invalidation of the entire section had they
foreseen the invalidity of the cooperation/reporting provision,
subsection © is volitionally severable. "
And on and on and on. The court found that some things were constitutional and some things weren’t and they all met the various severablility tests. So what happened to all those parts of the law? Swept under by Davis and never abjudicated on again.
Don’t get technical with me, Padawan Learner.
Steak dinner getting cold.
Wow. It sure got real quiet around here. I guess I’ll go out for a steak. Maybe someone will have some facts to rebut me, but it will be tough. Not the smartest thing to link to a court case that supports me 100%. In that “opinion” they made a point that the views of the voters should be paramount, and outlined many provisions of 187 that adhered to the limits in the US Constitution and still fulfilled the democratic expression of the voter.
So explain to me how Gray Davis fulfilled his obligations as the chief enforcer of the California Constitution, when he subverted the voter’s constitutional right to make law.
And please, please, let me know how the LA Times is in any way conveying a reasonable an accurate account when they continue to state repeatedly that Propostion 187 was thrown out by the courts.
I’ll be back, but I expect the sound of crickets.
Crickets. Just as I thought. Oh well, I’ll check back after work.
Yes, it was an initial decision THAT STILL STANDS BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER OVERTURNED.
Considering that I’ve pretty much trashed every assertion you’ve made with actual cites, you’re losing this debate everywhere except your own mind.
Are you really this ignorant? Brainglutton already took care of the explanation, but still…
Um…not quite.
While the court found some things constitutional and others not, most of it was not able to be put into effect by means of a permanent injunction. That injunction nullified every section except 2, 3 and 10. I didn’t link to the final ruling by Pfaezer because I can’t find a free version of it but here is a summary by the ACLU which I’m sure you will also find biased because the ACLU is full of lefties. :rolleyes:
Because that’s what happened. In fact, that’s how pretty much everyone reports it except for a few lunatic wing-nuts on the right. Right here we have conservative columnist [Terence Jeffrey
[/quote]
saying that exact same thing"
We also have [url=“Phyllis Schlafly Column 1/15/97 -- Congress Must Put the Brakes on the Imperial Judiciary”]Phyllis Schlafly](Conservative Columnists with Political News Commentary, Analysis):
We also have Ward Connerly:
We also have [url=“http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37476”]Michael Ackley[/url of World Net Daily:
In short, Happy Wanderer you ought to pay closer attention to the politics in your home state since you don’t seem to be doing a very good job right now. I’d start by not getting all of your news from Ann Coulter.
That was some crap-ass coding right there.
A decision that recommended that the portions deemed constitutional were severable and should be put into effect.
The most overturned Circuit Court in the land, and notoriously left.
Leaving portions unruled on.
Bingo. This is what we are angry about. Davis met with a number of groups (all far left) to decide what to do. He decided to scuttle the will of the people. (surprise surprise, sarge) This is why he is now swabbing toilets at Burger King.
Finally, I don’t give a rat’s rear what Ward Connerly or Phyllis Schlafly have to say about it. They probably get their info from the LA Times. It’s the big lie. Tell it often enough and even those who should know better will believe it.
Here’s the actual sequence of events, and it jibes with all that I recall following the story as it unfolded:
From here
Except, of course, that was just the permanent injunction. The actual overturning was a different decision - as I linked to in the ACLU article.
Also the most upheld court in the land and only considered notoriously left by extreme right wingers. Given the sheer volume of cases that the 9th Circuit receives, no other circuit in history has ever had so few cases as a percentage of the total number it’s decided on overturned.
In other words, you’re believing the conservative Big Lie.
Right. That would be Section 2 and 3, which gave harsher penalties for forging identity papers or carrying forged papers. The parts that were struck down were all the parts requiring the state to withhold services from illegal and to mandate greater cooperation between state employees and the INS. In other words, the parts that people actually cared about were struck down.
You’re allowed to be angry with him for not appealing. That doesn’t change the fact that the 9th Court struck down pretty much all of Prop 187.
In other words, everyone’s wrong but you… :rolleyes:
And thanks. Searching for the info I needed put me back in touch with an old friend. He was off the air for a while, but now I can get him on the Internet. Neat guy. Worked for just about every broadcast news organization around.
Is it just me, or did this post get totally hijacked?
Just keep buying what you have been told. Funny story. I was staying at the Hilton here and witnessed the manufacture of news with my own eyes. I was parked by the main entrance in my vehicle, waiting for my friend to come down from the room. Two vans pulled up. A 14 passenger van full of a bunch of lefty “protesters” and a news van from KNBC 4. The “protesters” all jumped out. The camera guy jumped out. As soon as he got focus and was rolling, the protesters waved their signs for a few moments. Then they all split. Total time elapsed: about sixty seconds. Sure enough, that night, KNBC 4 has a story “covering” the protest that used the 10 second clip. The only question I have left is did Channel Four pay for the rental on the van the protesters came in? I mean really. Just keep buying it. I’ll continue to make my own mind.
The issue of illegal immigration is germain to the topic. Ask Mr. Villaraigosa about his membership in MECHA, an organization that holds as one of it’s goals, the repatriation of the southwest United States to Mexico. To quote from their own “Philosophy of MEChA”:
"Finally, as Mechistas, we vow to work for the liberation of Aztlán, "
He has never repudiated his membership in this organization, nor it’s goals.
Ok, we get it, you don’t like Villaraigosa because he “supports” illegal immigration and was part of MEChA back when he was at UCLA. Other than that, you nor anyone else has even talked about Villaraigosa or nor policy issues that he is responsible for since post #6.
And Happy Wanderer, just out of curiosity, have you been pleased with any former mayors of Los Angeles? What did they do that pleased you? What would your dream Los Angeles mayor do? I’m not trying to pick a fight, just genuinely curious.
I’m still trying to digest this line. I may be back once I can retrieve my eyes from where they’ve fallen on the floor. For now, if this is true then you guys really need to rethink your voting security, sheesh!
:dubious: This business about illegals voting was brought up repeatedly by conservative posters in threads dealing with “voter intimidation” in 2004, and in threads on proposed election reforms since, and nobody has yet provided any credible cite to show it actually happens, let alone the numbers. Can you?
Los Angeles has a “weak” mayor. Most of the power around here is in the City Council and in the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Cretins like Zev Yaraslovski, Gloria Molina, and Yvonne Braithwaite-Burke run the show, and they never leave. As I have said, I support the Mayor in his plan for the Subway, but that is going to be a hard fight. I support the Mayor in his desire to reform the abysmal school system, although his chances of making much progress are dim.
And if Villaraigosa wants to give a wink and a nudge to certain groups by being very smug about not repudiating his MECHA membership, well fine. If he wants to pander further by joining their march, fine. They are in Disneyland if they think they are going to liberate one square inch of the United States to “Aztlan”. That sort of thinking is just mental mastrubation for ignorant college students.
The three issues that most affect quality of life in Los Angeles are:
- Traffic.
- Traffic.
- Traffic.
Finish the Red Line. Extend the Green Line to LAX. Extend the Gold Line to Claremont and eventually San Bernadino. Reinstate the plan to widen the Ventura Freeway, nimby’s be damned. Build more left turn signals. Time the lights better. Large segments of LA have no syncronization whatsoever. This is something they had in Chicago fifty years ago or more! Improve signage on our confusing roadway system so the out of towners stop getting lost. Require all highway contractors and agencies to perform work at night.
And he has already done some good things. He has instructed the hated Parking Enforcement department to back off a little, write fewer tickets, and do more to expidite traffic flow.
Aside from traffic, run a clean administration and cut the prolifigate waste. They are always complaining about lack of funds, threatening to close down the libraries, etc. Find wasted money and repurpose it to needed services and programs.
If he could do all that in a term or even two, I would praise him to the roof.
Oh, and potholes. Parts of Cahuega Blvd. West, coming through the pass from the valley, are about six months from turning into a dirt road again.