Comments on: Meg Whitman’s Latino Outreach & the Pete Wilson Connection

By: Mark C.

Mark C. — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:50:06 +0000

It is a fact that there many like me, ( loyalty to the betterment of American first, of Latino background), that clearly are in line with Reyfeo’s position here. ( Although I am not speaking for Reyfeo through my post, he can speak for himself just fine.) More importantly, we are organized and ready to let our voices be counted at the polls in 2010 and 2012. Fiscally reckless Tax n spend liberals and RINO’s (including the Meg Whitman type), have destroyed California and will NOT get our vote. Let’s be clear, Americans of Latin descent are NOT the property of the Liberal Democrats and do not respond to their marching orders on command. – maybe those illegals (regardless of ethnic background ) that make their way off govermant handouts from the legal taxpaying citizens of a liberal controlled CA and are always looking for the WIFM in the equation dolled out by liberals do, but conservatives, regardless of skin color, gender or religion do NOT need Gov handouts to make our way in a free market society so long as Gov stays out of the way. Conservatism is on the ascendency and the liberals on this board need to perform their pro-american patriotic duty and cooperate with the Conservatives and help us bring California back to greatness; the California they destroyed.

By: Update on the Meg Whitman Campaign

Update on the Meg Whitman Campaign — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:48:02 +0000

[...] in November, I blogged about California GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and her connection to former Governor Pete [...]

By: Southern Cali

Southern Cali — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:05:17 +0000

IE if Meg wins, she won’t hang the “Sombrero” because she will have to display the afro wig she received at the Crenshaw District Rally.

By: Xavier Cardenas

Xavier Cardenas — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:17:19 +0000

And how do explain this.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/arizona/election_2010_arizona_governor_gop_primary

This just goes to show that the climate is their for a xenophobic, racist anti-immigrant hater to flourish in this current enviornment. All these folks will have a big suprise when the latino people decide to exercise their rights like they did in 2009.

By: Stephen A. Nuño

Stephen A. Nuño — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:53:16 +0000

I took it as implied. I agree with the rest.

By: IE

IE — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:08:00 +0000

Should Meg win, I’m just wondering if she is going to hang the “Sombrero” given to her at this rally above her desk.

I bet she has in her attic at best.

By: Cockroach People

Cockroach People — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:27:16 +0000

“It only negates the validity that this its constitutionality a closed issue, as implied above.”

Yes, but again no one made that argument here (implied or otherwise). LP said: “Proposition 187 was eventually overturned in federal court.” She was right. You said: “I am pretty sure Prop 187 was not overturned by the federal courts.” She offered proof that it was, then you said “yeah, I know that” yet proceeded to argue with yourself about whether constitutionality was a closed issue.

BTW, you are also quite wrong about Plyler. The holding was substantive with regard to the 14th amendment of the CONSTITUTION. The jurisdictional question was resolved in favor of the children which then allowed the court to continue with the substantive holding that in fact
the Texas statute violated the equal protection clause.

By: Stephen A. Nuño

Stephen A. Nuño — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:56:57 +0000

It only negates the validity that this its constitutionality a closed issue, as implied above.

By: Cockroach People

Cockroach People — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:36:39 +0000

Stephen, your “final arbiter” argument is a straw man. The question is whether or not 187 has been declared unconstitutional by a court competent to hear such a case or controversy. It has. This would be the same result for any decision made buy a lower court with proper jurisdiction (e.g. see my murder analogy). The decision as it stands is binding on California whether or not an appeal was lost or the losing party chose not to appeal. Yes its unconstitutionality is inconvenient and may chill some debate among the uninformed, but that does not change the reality of the final jurisprudence expressed by the district court that was not appealed and is therefore the law on point with regard to 187.

I understand that in the popular mythology a lower court decision is merely something to be appealed until one gets the result they desire. Unfortunately that is not our system. Again, appeals are generally waged on narrow grounds for significant error or abuse of judicial discretion. Seldom is a case reviewed de novo. Is there room to craft something that avoids the points declared unconstitutional in the district court? Yes. Might a similar law get on the ballot? Yes. Might that law be declared unconstitutional as well? Yes. Might those people appeal to the 9th circuit (notoriously liberal according to more than a few) if they have grounds for appeal? Yes. Might that law get to the Supremes (a court that is quite conservative yet under Roberts has sided with noncitizens in 75% of its immigration cases [citing the importance of precedent an adherence to the letter of the law]) ? Yes. In fact there, is a whole host of things that could happen either way. But that potential does not negate the validity of the decision of the district court regarding 187. It’s unconstitutional until the fat lady sings; it’s not the other way around.

By: stephen

stephen — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:22:11 +0000

Coackroach, that granting cert is discretionary does not make the lower court the final arbiter of what is constitutional, even assuming coherence across districts. Its merely all the federal court has to say on the matter for now. So far, as you point out, the lower court has deemed prop 187 unconstitutional, but the statement that it is unconstitutional is usually designed to stop debate over a new prop-187.
As in the original post where the author states that prop 187 was “eventually” overturned, but Wilson “continued” to defend the measure, as if he was being defiant against a final decision, not merely taking the case through its proper course.

This is disingenuous, I think, particularly when appeal was not denied, but dropped by the Davis administration. For whatever political reasons, the constitutionality is far from final. As you say nothing is a closed issue, sure, but its certainly more closed when SCOTUS decides it. And I don’t know which law takes precedence in a prop 187 case. Are you saying SCOTUS has already decided on a prop 187 case?

I understand the insistence on shutting out debate by declaring prop 187 unconstitutional, as if it were a closed issue, especially since it got almost 60% of the vote. A new prop 187 would almost certainly pass again, given the economy. But politically speaking, insisting on its unconstitutionality, I think promotes lethargy in fighting against a new prop 187. “But I thought it was unconstitutional?”