Have you ever noticed that citizen initiatives are only overturned when they fall on the 'right' side of the aisle? Think about it: Victim's rights, reigning in PERS costs, politics and union dues, and others. The body politic said, hey, we may not agree but let us kill ourselves through suicide by doctor. The state laid off. No effort was made to over turn that or the Legally Stoned bill (medical marijuana), either. Now the Feds have a different take on it, but I'm talking state only.
There always seems to be some fatal flaw found by some judge and, wouldn't you know it, others jump on finding strength in the opposition and pretty soon the MSM picks up the thread and becomes the natural order of things.
This brings me to today. Some Marion County folks have had it up to HERE
with the anti Measure 37 judge, Mary James. A website has been established, a recall is being kicked off officially this week and Marion County can become a part of it. Here's where you can make your voice heard.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
WWW.RECALLJUDGEJAMES.COM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Victoria, I have a better Idea, (for all the good it will do.)I suggest we lean on our legislative representatives about articles of impeachment. Like I said,fot all the good it will do. Getting people to get together can be nearly impossible.
Getting people together is easy or hard depending on how mad people are.
Here in Wa. we qualified an initiative to rercind a legislature passed gas tax---we did it in 30 days with over 400,000 sigs. It can be done.
I hope that we can pull it off here in Oregon.
Victoria, your history is a little rusty. The courts overturned a measure setting campaign contribution limits passed in 1994 by a margin of 851,014 to 324,224. They also overturned Measure 62, a hodgepodee of campaign rules put together by public employee unions that passed in 1998 by 721,448 to 347,112.
Both those measures could fairly be characterized as initatives supported by the left, yet the court threw them out. I'm not defending the decade-long record of judicial activism by the Oregon Supreme Court, but I think we should be careful about characterizing this as a simple left-right split.
I also think the worst thing we can do is start recalling judges whose decisions we disagree with. I agree with those who believe recall should be limited to true corruption and malfeasance, not policy disagreements.
Judicial elections are another thing. There we as voters have the right to choose judges whose reasoning and values we respect.
The problem with your argument is that once we start recalling judges simply because we disagree with their decision, it gives pretty much anyone the same motivation.
Jack Roberts is correct on two things. First, this is not a right/left issue. Our country was founded on the fact that we have three equal branches of government.
Second, the courts have overturned numerous measures that would be considered "liberal" causes. The death with dignity act, which will probably get overturned by the Supreme Court.
It is a slippery slope once we start recalling judges we disagree with. Sure that's the easy way out. But it could be something people do everytime they disagree with a judges decision.
Let's start making a list of judges we want to recall. How about a hit list? *wink* (yes, people are that crazy)
Your logic as well as the logic of the people recalling this judge stinks to high heaven
The fourth any-mouse: the Oregon court system, which I used to be a part of, is so far left of center politically that if EVERY judge were retired suddenly, and replaced with even a cross-section of the leftist Willamette Valley, a rather large lurch to the right would happen.
The problem with the Left Coast juciciary is that it takes it's pliable-constitution dictum to heart so well that given the chance, if presented with the actual Constitution, they would refuse to believe that it ever existed.
The Clash of Cultures that will eventually come to blows (and bullets) isn't Islamo-fascism vs. Christianity, it's court-ordered socialism vs. the Constitution.
The wise person begins preparations NOW for that clash.
Victoria-
This is mind-boggling. Judges should not have to worry about the realm of public opinion. Their job is to interpret the constitution to the best of their ablility. Measure 37 is poorly worded, and when it was put on the ballot, the rhetoric made it seem as though an efficient economic benefit for property is fair for those whose property is displaced by Measure 37. Worded properly, Measure 37 is a political jumble of inefficiencies created to benefit corporations in the State of Oregon.
If you don't like the ruling of a judge, elect political officials, whose job it is to pay attention to public opinion, to amend ballot measures to the liking of the public, so that they will not be deemed unconstitutional by an "activist judge." The moment a judge is concerned more with public opinion than with interpreting the the constitution, then the judicial system begins to fail.
What saddens me the most is that people like yourself (Taft) are unwilling to admit that we have a system set up to deal with situations like this - it's called the appelate courts. If Judge James's ruling is wrong, then it will be overturned. She wouldn't be the first judge in history to have a ruling overturned. I'm pretty sure Supreme Court Nominee Alito had a ruling overturned - by the Supreme Court. You don't seem to have a problem with that!
ALL OF YOU PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST THE RECALL SHOULD READ YOUR CONSTITUTION ARTICLE XVII sec(1).
THE LAST SENTENCE SAYS "THIS ARTICLE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPAIR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO AMEND THIS CONSTITUTION BY VOTE UPON AN INITIATIVE PETITION THEREOFOR. (1906)"
THE FIRST TIME THE OREGON SUPREME COURT STARTED THROWING OUT THE INITIATIVE WAS 1998 ARAMATTA V. KITZHABER WHEN THEY RULED THAT ARTICLE XVII SEC 1 DID NOT ALLOW TWO SUBJECTS IN THE SAME INITIATIVE, THEY dissected all of article xvii sec(1) except for the last sentence and we ask them Supreme Court to explain that and they refused. The only way to get a Judge out of office is by recall unless they commits a crime, 99% of all judges are re-elected and they all retire in mid term so the Governor can re-appoint and not have to run in the open election. Judge James's decision is policial and has no legal foundation with a fair Supreme Court it would be thrown out but with this Supreme Court all but one appointed by liberal Governors we don't have a chance. Look what happen when we tried to put the judges in districts, they knew they would lose control if they had to run in a open election in a District that people had a chance to throw them out. Years ago this was the case the Supreme Court Judges had to run in Districts. Jack Roberts is wrong in saying that this is not a recall offence, it is, anytime a Judge makes a policial decision he or she should have to answer for it. Thisa Judge even denied the AGs request for a stay, so the people of Oregon has to suffer for 1 to 2 years while this plays out in the Courts. ITS WRONG ands she should be recalled and we should straighten out the rest of the court system. I don't mean I have to agree with the decision, but if the law is there and the people voted on it, she does not have the right to throw it out unless it violates the federal constitution.
recall is good idea. a very bad decision is not grounds for impeachment though.
I've read Judge James' opnion and I believe she should be recalled. In her opnion she creates two classes of landowners, "pre owners" and "post owners". She states M37 gives 'special rights' to pre owners. If that is the case, although I see it as returning rights taken, then Oregon's land use policy discriminates against pre owners. Which I feel should cause a massive overhaul of our land use system.
The second issue is simple and can be found in any old US history book. The constitution is to protect the people from the government. Judge James used it to protect the government from the people. She feels it prevents the government from making laws.
It seems to me that what M37 does from a law making stand point, is force the government to think hard about what it's about to do. Since 1973 when our land use policy came to be, the government has gobbled up rural land, without so much as a dime going to the owners of this land.
An example can be found in the history of Polk County. In 1979 the Board of Commissioners decided there was an emergency in Polk County. For the health and well being of the citizens of Polk County all land zoned as acreage residential (AR) had to be re-zoned as farm forest(FF). The citizens of Polk County who bought and paid for AR land had the right to build one house there and live on it. Once the government changed the zoning to FF those owners couldn't build a home.
Most people don't pay attention until the government is in their backyard. The land grab in Oregon began in 1973 when Gov. T. McCall didn't like the fact that his neighbor sold a piece of land and that buyer built a house...which T. McCall could see from his front porch.
It really doesn't matter which way you feel about Judge James and the recall. The greater concern here should be your rights. Property rights are not rights of the land but human rights of the owners of that land. We are loosing those rights more and more every year. Wake up! If you own your own home or even dream of owning a home, you better pay attention.
Post a Comment