…I’m not sure that this is DrDeth’s claim (although at this stage it really is hard to tell.) I think DrDeth is asserting that after the “yes” vote for Proposition H won the ballot, Kamala Harris signed or made some sort of declaration that Proposition H is “legal.” Then it went to court: and the courts declared it “illegal” and that means Kamala Harris is a very very bad person. Or something like that.
Cite? This is not a trivial request: this is central to your claim. Your cites have been so astonishingly shoddy and off-point so far that I 100% don’t take anything you’re saying at face value. Where are you getting this idea from, and what’s the exact text of the law that requires the DA to sign off on propositions?
I’m mildly curious what you think your point is here.
Exactly.
Now when you say things like “She said that gun laws that were unconstitutional were perfectly OK,” it carries the implication that she said laws were perfectly OK, despite the fact that they were known to be unconstitutional at the time, which she either knew or should have known to be the case.
So for future reference, the way you properly describe this is along the lines of “she approved gun laws that were later found to be unconstitutional.”
It’s the difference between disregarding the Supreme Court’s past rulings, and failing to outguess how they might rule in the future.
But it WAS disregarding past rulings. San Francisco had already been told it could not ban guns.
So walk me through this. Lots of people put enormous effort into this proposition, and it won. Were all the people who voted for it secretly gun nuts who just wanted to funnel some city money to the NRA? Were they all enormous idiots who didn’t realize that if an identical ban had been struck down, this one would be too?
Or was there some difference between the two proposals, and proponents of Prop H thought that the differences might enable it to pass muster?
The scenario being put forward–that over a hundred thousand voters voted in favor of something that they knew would be struck down, and that city leaders including attorneys signed off on something that was unambiguously illegal–is a little difficult to countenance.
I think it’s a safe bet to never underestimate the stupidity of Californians. I suspect the vast majority of the 100,000+ voters who supported it had no clue about the previous judicial rulings, and those that did thought it would be good politics to gin up some enthusiasm among the masses, even though it was going to be struck down by the courts.
Refresh my memory. Was this one of those 5-4 rulings, widely touted by the “winning” side as just as good as 9-0? And OP is chastising someone for not guessing which way the 5-4 cookie would crumble?
The way you’ve phrased it I guess it wasn’t one of those 2-1 rulings by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, led by right-winger Diarmuid O’Scannlain whose gun-nut rulings are so off-the-charts that even the Alito-Thomas Scotus overturns them … by 5-4 vote.
Such moral clarity about guns the American Scotus has given us now. :rolleyes:
OP, I think a better and more useful way to start this thread might have been something like this, assuming you understand why some personal possession of a hand gun may make more sense for some people than for the average person (I like the medicine argument someone made above):
Kamala Harris says that she owns a gun for personal safety. As a gun rights supporter, of course I support her right to do so. She’s made statements in the past that seem to indicate that personal gun ownership should be severely restricted or banned. I disagree with her position. She thinks she should own a gun because she’s personally at greater risk than the average person. My positions is that bureaucrats are not in a good position to determine who should be able to own a gun (barring some extreme circumstances, like being a felon) and determine who is at greater risk. Rather, I think that should be left up to individuals, since they know their circumstances best. Furthermore, guns are useful for other reasons, such has hunting, collecting, and simply for fun. My view is that being part of a free society also means being free to own a gun, and in fact that right is in our Constitution, and the Supreme Court has affirmed a personal right to own a gun. I’m not saying she’s being hypocritical simply for owning a gun, since she really is at elevated risk and that probably justifies it in her mind. I’m saying she’s incorrect in trying to restrict gun ownership for various reasons, some that are probably contrary to the Constitution.
What do you think? Do you think that her determination that she should own a gun undermines her general positions on gun control? Do you think that the government should have a large part in determining who should own a gun?
I think that would have been a more useful start.
BTW, even if it is her goal to turn the US into some sort of gun-free hellhole like the UK or Australia (I have no idea what her actual position is, and this thread hasn’t made it any clearer), the fact is that she hasn’t achieved that yet and the US is still awash in guns. Even holding that position, if it is her position, makes her a target, further justifying her personal ownership.
OP, I don’t know what your motivation was for starting this thread the way you did. If it was really, ha ha, look at the hypocritical gun-grabber, she doesn’t even understand statistics, and ha ha libs for supporting such an ignorant hypocrite, that seems more like a rant to me and probably should have been started in the Pit.
I trust that HD started the thread he intended to start. Your suggestion would’ve been a thread much more appropriate for Elections, but he wanted to start the thread he wanted to start, and he also didn’t want to go to the Pit, so here we are.
I’m idly curious why you thought your phrasing above would dispose me to continue dialog with someone I know in advance will disagreewith virtually anything I say.
FWIW, again trying to do DrDeth’s work for him, I’ve spent about ten minutes reading various cites about the initiative process, including the handout given to prospective initiative sponsors, the Wiki on the process, and the CA AG’s website on the process. I’m not seeing anywhere in the process that the district attorney gets to say, “I’m pretty sure this initiative won’t survive a court challenge, so I’m gonna cut out the middleman and just deny the initiative.”
I have two predictions:
- DrDeth won’t provide any evidence that the DA does this; and
- DrDeth won’t admit the mistake.
I also did a quick search before I asked for his cite. I know if Washington their is a process to go to court prior to getting something on the ballot if it doesn’t qualify for some reason. I think the standard is very high, as courts prefer to wait to see if it passes before reviewing (just like they would with any other law)
My guess is the A.G. (and maybe the D.A., but that’s less clear) can make a decision that they failed to get enough signature or otherwise don’t quality for a vote. I’m much less inclined to believe that an elected non-judicial partisan official can keep a measure off the ballot simply because, in their view, it’s not constitutional. I can envision all kinds of mischief with that short of power.
Exactly.
Man, I need to proof-read better. “Sort of power.” Not “short of power.”
Maybe I shoulda said “Almost exactly.” I knew what you meant :).
I did some research too.
The initiative to split CA into smaller states was kept off the ballot due to a lawsuit that was ruled on by the CA Supreme Court as opposed the the CA AG unilaterally deciding that it wasn’t legal and keeping it off the ballot.
Here’s a cite for that: California Supreme Court Squashes Bid To Split State Into Three.
RitterSport, I appreciate your thoughts. My OP was directed more towards her risk assessment than an accusation of hypocrisy. You’ve made the case that she really has elevated risk above and beyond the average citizen. I don’t think I’m convinced of that. Do you have anything you’d like to add to support your argument on that point?
She put people in jail for over 25 years. As a result, she has had a steady stream of credible death threats since 1990.