Highly Refined Debate

Via The Superficial, "Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black as Jesus. There's more star power than humor, but still worth a watch for a few chuckles. 

Electing Judges is Moronic

And this is why:

Six months ago, California's highest court discarded its reputation for caution and ended the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Now the moderately conservative state Supreme Court is being asked to take an even riskier step -- to overturn the November voter initiative that reinstated the gay-marriage ban and possibly provoke a voter revolt that could eject one or more of the justices from the bench.

The court is under intense pressure from all sides. Its first response to the challenges may come today, when the justices meet privately in a weekly conference to decide which cases to accept for review.

Legal scholars say case law does not give the court a clear path for overturning the voter-approved measure. The state high court -- six Republicans and one moderate Democrat -- generally defers to the will of the people. Only twice has the court rejected initiatives on the legal grounds cited by opponents of Proposition 8.

Civil rights groups, churches and local governments have filed six lawsuits asking the court to declare the measure an illegal constitutional revision. Letters also have poured into the court pleading for urgent action, and anti-Proposition 8 rallies have attracted large crowds statewide.

At the same time, opponents of gay marriage have warned that they will work to oust any justice who votes against Proposition 8, a threat particularly palpable in a year when voters in other states have booted six state high court justices after campaigns by special interest groups.

"It is a time of lots of crocodiles in the bathtub," said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has followed the court for decades. "Their oath requires them to ignore these kinds of political threats. But the threat of having to face a contested election is a significant one."

So, opposition to the one of these judges will have nothing to do with whether or not the matter is decided in accordance with state law, and everything to do with whether the judge decides the "right" way for these opponents of Proposition 8. Even if most of these voters understood the intricacies of state ballot initiative law (they don't) and the question was a close one that could go either way, it wouldn't matter to them. Whatever the law says, they'll be furious with these "activist judges" because they will have ignored the "will of the people." They will work to oust them, even if the judge makes the decision in accordance with what he earnestly believes the law requires and not out of his or her own personal preferences. And these judges will most certainly be thinking about that as they consider this case, making their impartiality-a requirement of their office-necessarily suspect.

The election of judges is a farce. In a contest between what the law requires and what the people want, the people will win and the law will lose, either because the judge will be swayed by the prospect of voter ire or because the people will vote that judge out. To satisfy the silly requirements of those who think that judges should be accountable to the public for their decisions on questions of law that the public can't even understand is ridiculous, and should not be permitted in a country that values the rule of law as highly as we supposedly do.

Proposition Update

My apologies for not keeping you updated last night on the various propositions of note; I simply had my hands full keeping up with various House and Senate races, and races here in Texas. That being said, here's where we stand this morning:

California:

Proposition 8 (defining marriage as between a man and a woman): Well, despite declarations that the proposition was both failing and passing, it remains too close to call this morning. 95% of precincts are reporting and "yes" leads by four percent but there's reluctance to call it until almost all votes are counted.

Proposition 2 (requires improvements in the treatment of factory farmed animals): this measure passed easily, by a whopping 27%.

Colorado:

Amendment 48: a measure that would defined "personhood" from the moment of conception was utterly destroyed, losing by 50%.

South Dakota:

Initiated Measure 11: a less restrictive version of the abortion ban that failed in 2006, this measure also goes down in flames.

Arkansas:

Proposed Initiative 1: a measure to ban unmarried couples (gays, that is) from adopting or serving as foster parents passes. Arkansas children suffer.

Arizona:

Proposition 102: bans gay marriage; passed.

Florida:

Marriage Protection Amendment: even though gay marriage is already illegal in Florida, this measure changes the constitution just to be on the safe side (you can never be too careful with those gays, I guess.) It passed with 62% of the vote.

So the Christian moralists gain no traction on the issue of abortion, but apparently appeals to discrimination against gays still work. I sincerely hope change in that regard is not too far down the road.

California's Proposition 8 Failing/Arkansas Measure Succeeding

I don't have a thread for this, but know that exit polls are showing that the anti-gay marriage initiative in California is faltering(via Andrew Sullivan.) Unfortunately, it appears that the ballot initiative in Arkansas that would ban unmarried couples (read, gay couples) from adopting or serving as foster parents has passed.

UPDATE: I spoke too soon. It looks like Proposition 8 is likely to pass, thus amending the California constitution to limit marriage to heterosexuals.

UPDATE II: See our newest post for a more comprehensive treatment of various state ballot initiatives.

No on 8

Itzhak Perleman, the greatest violinist of our age, says vote no on California's Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. One of his daughters is gay, and apparently he would like her to be treated as fully human, like the rest of us. I agree. If you live in California and you don't like Christian moralists telling you who people can and cannot marry, then you owe to all of us to get out and vote this ridiculous proposition down.

Not this crap again

Republicans are trying to bring back from the dead a ballot initiative to carve up California's electoral votes in an attempt to steal the next presidential election:

Veteran GOP consultants said Monday that they were relaunching a drive to change the way California allocates its electoral college votes, aimed at helping the 2008 Republican presidential nominee capture the White House.

Political strategist David Gilliard said he was taking over the ballot initiative campaign, along with strategist Ed Rollins and fundraiser Anne Dunsmore. Consultant Mike Arno will oversee the signature-gathering effort.

The effort stalled last month when its original organizers failed to raise the $2 million needed to place the initiative on the June ballot. Fortunately, they still have an uphill climb:

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen has set Nov. 13 as the deadline for submitting signatures to place the measure on the June ballot. Backers must gather 434,000 valid signatures of registered voters. Because many signatures are typically deemed invalid, circulators will probably seek at least 650,000. The initial campaign had gathered about 100,000 signatures.

Even if it does get on the ballot, polls that have already been conducted show a majority of California voters understand this is a stealth attempt by the GOP to rig the system so that a Democrat can't possibly win the presidency. After all, that's why Dunsmore, who has done fundraising for Giuliani's presidential campaign, is one person behind the initiative drive and a major Giuliani benefactor, Wall Street mogul Paul E. Singer, has donated $175,000 to fund the effort. Do they really think people don't see through this stuff?

California leads by example with flourescent lighting

California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine is proposing a bill that would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs (the type just about everyone has in their home). These would be replaced with compact fluorescent lights. You can read what he has to say about it here. Before you get all bent out of shape, right wingers, know that the incandescent is on its way out anyway. Phillips will stop producing incandescents by 2012. I'm sure most of the industry has similar plans. The ban will only make things happen a little earlier. But there's no reason to gripe about it anyway; fluorescent lights are an improvement in every way over incandescents:

While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.

"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."

Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.

About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.

A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.

Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said.

California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.

People may be put off by the fact that they cost a couple of dollars more, but you have to remember to factor in the savings over the life of the bulb. CFLs last longer and take less energy to power. As for environmental impact, while there is mercury in fluorescent lights, more mercury is emitted from coal-burning plants over the life of an incandescent than there is in a CFL plus the coal it takes to power it.

All in all, it's a win-win situation. I doubt Texas has anywhere near the foresight to put this on the agenda, especially since Rick Perry seems to want us to burn more coal, but as individuals we can start on it anyway and wait for the government to catch up. Besides, it'll save us all some money.