Log In

View Full Version : Judicial Votes in Tomorrow's Sonoma County Election


Roland Jacopetti
11-03-2014, 11:20 AM
Hi, Waccovoters. A while ago, someone on WaccoBB asked about the judges on tomorrow's ballot, and whether anyone knew anything about them.

I just heard, rightly or wrongly, that two of them, Associates Justices Liu and Werdegar, were judges who were instrumental in cancelling Proposition 49, the anti-Citizens United proposition (corporations aren't people, money isn't speech).

If this is so, I would suggest voting "No" on those two judges being elected to the Supreme Court. If anyone knows anything more about them, I hope they'll put it on WaccoBB right away. Thanks.
pbrinton
11-03-2014, 08:43 PM
Hi, Waccovoters. A while ago, someone on WaccoBB asked about the judges on tomorrow's ballot, and whether anyone knew anything about them.

I just heard, rightly or wrongly, that two of them, Associates Justices Liu and Werdegar, were judges who were instrumental in cancelling Proposition 49, the anti-Citizens United proposition (corporations aren't people, money isn't speech).

If this is so, I would suggest voting "No" on those two judges being elected to the Supreme Court. If anyone knows anything more about them, I hope they'll put it on WaccoBB right away. Thanks.

I disagree. A Supreme Court Justice's job is to rule on the law, not to decide on what is good public policy. Their decision was that the initiative process, as a matter of law, cannot be used for the purpose of a referendum. This does not imply that they disagreed with the content of the proposition, but only that the form of the proposition did not comply with the requirements of the law. It could have been any referendum on any subject and the result would have been the same.

Voting against them because they made this ruling is to imply that they should have allowed something illegal just because it was in a good cause, and I am sure that is not what you want. If you do not like the law, the proper target for your displeasure would be be the legislative (or actually in this case, the California constitution.)

Patrick Brinton