California Gov. Gavin Newsom thrilled many this weekend by saying that his administration will model a new law on Texas’ abortion ban that would let private citizens sue anyone who makes or sells assault weapons or ghost guns. It won’t work. Legally, that is. It will be hugely successful politically, but not without costs to the state and potential litigants.
Gov. Newsom denounced the Supreme Court in Women’s Health v. Jackson for refusing to enjoin the Texas law that allows people to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion performed after about six weeks. That led to widespread calls for the passage of legislation to “codify Roe,” including from the White House.
Newsom, however, wants to replicate the law to limit Second Amendment rights the way that conservatives used it to limit reproductive rights.
“I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place. But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.”
Newsom said that his staff will be working with the Legislature and California Attorney General Rob Bonta to craft the bill to let citizens sue anyone who “manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts” in California. They could seek damages of at least $10,000 per violation plus costs and attorney’s fees.
Good luck with that.
The problem is multifold. First, the Texas law was quickly found to be unconstitutional by the district court, as would the California law. Indeed, many of us declared the law as facially unconstitutional under existing precedent on the day that it was enacted. That means that, while there are litigation costs, those costs would decrease quickly as other courts declare challenges to be unconstitutional.
Second, the Supreme Court just allowed pre-enforcement challenges so the California law could be challenged to avoid any “chilling effect” on gun rights. Eight out of nine justices agreed that such early challenges are permissible against those with enforcement responsibilities in the abortion area. As a state that has led efforts to limit gun rights, there are a host of such officials with similar licensing powers in California.
Third, and most importantly, Newsom limited the law to gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers” to the exclusion of a wider array of purchasers or “aiders and abetters.” The Texas law was so menacing because it exposed such a wide array of people to potential lawsuit. It would not be quite as popular to go after gun owners or gun rights groups. Yet, Newsom is targeting businesses which are going to be less intimidated by such litigation costs in a law that would be clearly unconstitutional.
That is why, if the law is crafted as Newsom suggests, this won’t work legally. Nevertheless, there will be much cooing on cable programs at the cleverness of Newsom and the comeuppance for conservatives. Newsom will seize the moment in terms of popularity while leaving the costs to others to bear in the later failed litigation.
Newsom did not help things by declaring “If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that.” That is openly acknowledging that this law is meant to achieve indirectly what the state has failed to do directly: reduce gun ownership. That is precisely why the Supreme Court just green-lighted pre-enforcement challenges to the Texas law and now, with the help of Newsom, the California law would collapse quickly on the same grounds.
In the recent decision, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that
“The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. … Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”
With his bravado, Newsom has guaranteed that courts will strike down his law as an open “mockery” of gun rights precedent and he will actually box in liberal judges and jurists in voting against the California law on the same grounds.
Indeed, the California law would put the Biden Administration into a bind. It just intervened first as an amicus party and then an actual party in the Texas litigation. (As expected, the Court tossed out the Biden Administration’s lawsuit as “improvidently granted”). The Administration insisted that such a law is an abomination given that the rights of abortion are established and this is an effort to nullify those rights through exposure to lawsuits. Here Newsom himself said that that is precisely what they want to do.
So, will the Biden administration refuse to oppose the law in defense of established gun rights as it did reproductive rights? If so, it would support criticism of the Justice Department of advancing political agendas and make Attorney General Merrick Garland look like a feckless functionary. With the mid-term elections looming and falling polling numbers across the country, that is probably not a choice the Biden Administration would like to make to defend a legislatively-supported soundbite.
Once the early courts strike down the California law, some citizens could face sanctions for frivolous lawsuits seeking litigation costs (unless such motions are blocked under the law). Moreover, there will be a great expense of drafting and defending a law designed to support a soundbite. Many judges will be even less enamored with being asked to participate in what is largely political performance art.
That is why the new California law is certain to play better on cable than in the courts.
California here I come!
Right back with my auto gun!
I will shoot em…
I might loot em…
California here I come!
Image is everything for the statists
OT: Chris Wallace is leaving Fox, but take note of what he says:
“It is the last time — and I say this with real sadness — we will meet like this,” “Eighteen years ago, the bosses here at Fox promised me they would never interfere with a guest I booked or a question I asked. And they kept that promise.
“I have been free to report to the best of my ability, to cover the stories I think are important, to hold our country’s leaders to account. It’s been a great ride.”
According to Wallace, unlike the MSM, Fox did not interfere with Wallace providing news (spinning to the left) and opinions to its audience. The same cannot be said for the MSM.
“ Many judges will be even less enamored with being asked to participate in what is largely political performance art.”
The Supreme Court is already there. They had the ability to stay the Texas law pending legal arguments on lower courts. Sotomayor was right when she noted in her first dissenting opinion that this would happen. The court has no one to blame but itself.
If California is really worried about crime (and not just “guns”), it will get rid of the liberal prosecutors who constantly allow criminals to walk. It is, after all, criminals who shoot those guns, and they don’t need to acquire them legally. But this isn’t really about crime, which Democrats have been aiding and abetting throughout the country. It’s about weakening the Constitution and peoples’ civil rights. There is no constitutional right to abortion, but there is a constitutional right to bear arms.
Newsom is acting like the Svalez of governors? Turley is laughing at him.
Turley himself pointed out in previous columns about the Texas law that this indeed could be done with other rights.
He essentially agrees the law proposed by the governor is possible and the idea just became a reality.
Turley noted that a Texas court just ruled its enforcement mechanism is unconstitutional. BUT, its ruling solely applies to the Texas law. Not California. California can still implement its law because it involves a different issue. The only way states can be prevented from using such enforcement mechanisms is for the Supreme Court to address it. Twice they have already stated they won’t because a state court must declare it first, only after a clinic is sued by someone.
If the law in California is an exact replica even their liberal courts wouldn’t be able to rule on it just as the Texas law does.
It’s the whole point. To force the Supreme Court to deal with the enforcement mechanism.
It doesn’t matter whether the California law won’t fly. It’s all about forcing the Supreme Court to declare ANY such law unconstitutional.
I believe you have misunderstood both the professor’s comments and the SCOTUS decision. The immediate ISSUE before the Court–and the crux of this decision– addressed procedural issues involving proper PARTIES -and not the constitutional merits of abortion (and any nexus or constitutional crossover to gun rights, etc.)
(I apologize. This comment was intended to address your 11:51 post.)
Lin, I think one of Svelaz’s many problems is that he takes phrases to mean what he wants and puts them together, not realizing that much of it is gobbledegook. Seldom do I see Svelaz genuinely understanding the issue under concern.
Lin,
The law’s enforcement mechanism which involves the removal of any state official from enforce it doesn’t prevent the court from issuing a stay.
The court is well within its power to issue a stay until the state courts can resolve it. The professor has indeed noted that other rights can be by the same tactic used in Texas. I see a lot of posts claiming you can’t do that with the 2nd amendment rights, but you actually can. Texas proved that with their law. It was not about denying the right to abortion. It was more importantly denying a woman’s liberty to make her own choices. Women’s right of liberty is being denied.
Dear Svelaz: I stand by what I said. It appears that you are either conflating two different rulings by the Court, or, alternatively, you have selected certain sentences from both to create your own “take” on the matter. I particularly note your comment that “it’s all about forcing the Court to declare such law unconstitutional.” ( For those not following the two rulings, the SEPTEMBER ruling denied injunctive relief/stay of S.B.8, -articulating several reasons. importantly, applicants’ “failure to carry their burden” on procedural questions and injunctive relief. The second DECEMBER decision also does NOT address what you are decrying, i.e., your last sentence to me, “Women’s right of liberty is being denied.”
Again, as I said, this second (December) ruling expressly addresses procedural standing and proper parties, NOT the substantive constitutional issue of women’s liberty rights. Eight of the nine justices concurred on this. The Court nearly INVITED future pre-enforcement challenges on constitutional claims such as you propose, –but that is not what was before the Court. I invite you to go back and read both Sep. and Dec. rulings, then try again.
(p.s., I just went online to check my OWN understanding of the Court’s rulings. Indeed, the Court expressly states that whether S.B. 8 is consistent with the Federal Constitution is not before the Court, pg. 4. A “stay” or injunctive relief is hardly proper for an issue not before the Court….
And maybe they will – when the issue is ripe.
Svelaz, it is not good enough to point out that something “could be done with other rights.”. One needs to tie things together, something you are unable to do. Read Turley’s present op-ed about what he believes. He is pretty straightforward even though you do not understand it. The Supreme Court felt it better to address the issue with another case. It frequently passes on important cases permitting things to evolve.
“It doesn’t matter whether the California law won’t fly. It’s all about forcing the Supreme Court to declare ANY such law unconstitutional.”
Summarize what ruling (ANY such law) you are trying to reference.
S. Meyer,
“ Svelaz, it is not good enough to point out that something “could be done with other rights.”. It is and justice Sotomayor pointed this out. Even many conservative legal scholars including Turley admitted other rights can be undermined by a law like the one inTexas. That “something”’ is the Texas law which CAN be tailored to just about any right if left standing.
“ Summarize what ruling (ANY such law) you are trying to reference.”
S. Meyer. For a guy who is constantly claiming others don’t have intelligence of ability to understand things you really end up looking exactly like you describe.
“ The Supreme Court felt it better to address the issue with another case. It frequently passes on important cases permitting things to evolve.”
If you really understand what you’re arguing you would know that the Supreme Court can issue a stay too.
“ One needs to tie things together, something you are unable to do.”
This is the funniest part, you never tie things together. You randomly tie one entirely different issue with another and make a “connection” which often ends up being a nonsensical word salad that you try to pass off as smart observation. You know, like when you claimed “excellent” is synonymous with “accuracy”. Yeah, that kind of nonsense.
Svelaz, you can throw whatever insults you wish, but it is evident that your replies containing phrases do not put those phrases together. You are like a parrot who can repeat but doesn’t know what he says.
The Supreme Court can do many things, but one of the most important things they can do is not do anything and not even comment. Sometimes not commenting is best. That is something you have never learned to do. Instead, you double down on Stupidity.
In this and most of your replies to me, I note there is no content. To provide a basis for your comments, I asked you to “Summarize what ruling (ANY such law) you are trying to reference.” which you haven’t done. That would require knowledge, something you do not have.
S. Meyer,
“ Svelaz, you can throw whatever insults you wish, but it is evident that your replies containing phrases do not put those phrases together. ”
They are not insults, they are the truth.
All my replies have phrases and putting together phrases constitute sentences. Everyone’s replies contain phrases. Even yours.
“ The Supreme Court can do many things, but one of the most important things they can do is not do anything and not even comment.”
Yes S. Meyer, very good, and that includes the ability to issue a stay which was my original point. In the Texas case they had that opportunity twice. There was no reason not to do so. Here the conservative justices showed their bias. They were not being objective.
“ In this and most of your replies to me, I note there is no content. To provide a basis for your comments, I asked you to “Summarize what ruling (ANY such law) you are trying to reference.” which you haven’t done. That would require knowledge, something you do not have.”
LOL!!!! S. Meyer, you really are dumb. Ben Marcus was right. I have been providing you with all the content necessary for any intelligent individual to be able to infer what law I’m referring to. Obviously you’re not intelligent enough to figure it out on your own. That you have to ask after several posts containing enough content to surmise what is being discussed CLEARLY demonstrates a failure to exercise the alleged intelligence you possess.
“All my replies have phrases and putting together phrases constitute sentences”
Svelaz, you might not realize it, but you put together a lot of phrases and come up with gibberish. After you gather the phrases, I suggest that you try and think of what they mean. Then write a reply that has meaning to the world, not just to your limited being.
“Yes S. Meyer, very good, and that includes the ability to issue a stay ”
A stay is not the same thing as not commenting. The Supreme Court is not there to get into every issue brought to court around the country. They pick and choose.
“you really are dumb. Ben Marcus was right.”
Ben Marcus is a caricature of a mindless, drugged-out person that uses whatever knowledge he has so loosely that he seldom makes sense or is correct. You are striving to be more like him which is going in the wrong direction.
LOL!!! Ben Marcus was right. The biggest irony here is that what you describe everything I say is what YOU do.
“Once the early courts strike down the California law, some citizens could face sanctions for frivolous lawsuits seeking litigation costs (unless such motions are blocked under the law). Moreover, there will be a great expense of drafting and defending a law designed to support a soundbite. Many judges will be even less enamored with being asked to participate in what is largely political performance art.”
********************************
They RadLibDims are extreme, JT. Nobody … and I mean nobody save themselves … ever thought they were smart.
Yeah those Dim Dems have shaped the fifth largest economy in the world out of one measly state that grows 25% of the nation’s food and is home to.most of the cutting edge companies in the nation and the world: Alphabet, Facebook, SpaceX, Tesla, Twitter, Google, etc etc
What a bunch of overachiever dummies.
What a stupid comment. California was not built by Democrats and certainly not the Democrats of today. The Democrats of today are destroying a great state. Though your brain is too foggy to remember, Ronald Reagan was governor of that state.
Reagan is ancient history and has nothing to do with 21sr Century Caliifornia.
Zip.
Schwarzenegger left $27 billion in debt.
Brown cleaned up that mess.
California is a Democrat-run state.
Sorry.
California did not always have the horrible management it has today. Today, it is almost wholly a Democrat state, which explains why the state looks so bad. Looting, tent cities, violence and many other things accompany Democrat disasters. Look at other strongholds of Democrat leadership such as Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit.
California probably has the best geography in the world for any major area. That makes California an economic powerhouse that suffers a morally depraved government when Democrats occupy the seat of government. That is why a state loaded with water doesn’t have enough of it, and a state that should be able to provide electricity to all can’t. It is even unable to manage its wonderful forests leading to forest fires destroying the environment and homes its citizens live in. It has wonderful ports where ships worldwide can wait to enter months just to unload their products that are in high demand.
What does California haves that most wouldn’t want? Depraved people like you are ignorant of the world around them and living off the scraps others throw.
S. Meyer: “and a state that should be able to provide electricity to all can’t.”
+++
No, it can’t and people with electric vehicles were surprised when they couldn’t refill their batteries when the blackouts took place. In some places they resorted to using diesel motors to power generators to charge electric vehicles. Perhaps that isn’t as ‘green’ as was originally intended.
They have gotten lots of water in other years, so much that some dams were close to breaking, but rather than keep it for the inevitable, and cyclic, lean times they dumped much of it into the ocean. Now they wonder where the water is.
Califirnia has 40 million people which is 1/9th the population of the entire country.
Which is why Califirnia has water shortages and power outages and high taxes and high cost of living.
If 10 or 20 million people would move to Texas or whatever podunk backward hands our Red State you’re from, this state would be a lot more manageable.
Califirnia wants a renewable grid and all electric cars by 2030 and that would be a lot more attainable with a few less million people.
Population of Califiornia in 1960 was 15.9 million 0eople and this place was golden.
Let’s roll it back to that and the whole state will be like where I live: sparsely populated, prosperous, peaceful.
Still the most influential, most progressive, most productive and most prosperous state in the union.
Small minds like yours see only homelessness and water shortages.
Bigger minds see a much bigger picture.
For example, California uses 38 billion gallons of water every day and even with 40 million people, 70% of that water goes to agriculture.
The ag that produces like 20% of all the food consumed by Americans.
That’s exceptional management.
You just stay where you are and all will be fine.
“Califirnia has 40 million people … Which is why Califirnia has water shortages and power outages and high taxes, and high cost of living.”
Ben, you are an idiot. Israel, a mostly arid desert with little freshwater supply, exports water to Jordan and farms the desert where rain is seldom expected.
Israel has 9 million people and I wouldn’t be surprised if California consumes more water in a day or a week than Israel does in a year.
I’ll look it up.
Keep watching Hee Haw and I’ll be right back.
Israel is mostly desert. The Jordan River is a nothing whose supply is split with multiple countries. Listening to you lets one know right away that you know nothing. How can Israel have such a little water supply and yet meet the water needs of its citizens, its farms in the desert where it seldom rains and its exports?
You don’t know. Maybe you will look it up, but I think you prefer to remain ignorant. It’s easier, but that might interfere with your dinner fighting with other dogs for the scraps of food thrown by the rich at the Malibu Kitchen.
Desalination?
Aquifers?
Import it from California or British Columbia?
Steal it from the Palestinians?
What does Israel have to do with anything anyway?
You are not intelligent but you are tiresome.
Israel is gonna start World War III if they don’t stop expanding.
Ben, You are a dummy.
“Desalination?”
Yes.
“Aquifers?”
Nothing significant. Most of Israel is desert.
“Import it from California or British Columbia?”
California has none to sell
“Steal it from the Palestinians?”
Israel supplies water to Palestinians and electricity to Gaza. It also provides education, medical care and, most importantly, jobs.
Hamas supplies the terrorists that kill children while dumb people like you donate money to Palestinian organizations that pay the family of dead terrorists.
“Israel is gonna start World War III if they don’t stop expanding.”
Israel is not expanding. Judea and Samaria were always a legal part of Israel. The Palestinians living there have self-government and much better life than in Gaza.
It is Stupid people like you that cause wars and killing.
Ben based on your comment about Palestinians, I will copy something I provided in a reply on another subject. I will help you with your education.
—–
*The history before the British Mandate and the law:
Jordan illegally occupied Judea/Samaria for 19 years while they did not have the backing of international law, but the world accepted the occupation.
Israel cannot possibly be an occupier, for what would they be occupying? They would be occupying land that is legally theirs.
How can that be? The international community created laws to protect the borders of all nations after the first world war.
Those laws gave Israel sovereignty over the entire area of Israel, Judea and Samaria that I will detail later.
But, there is history even before that. The Jewish people lived in that land for over 3,000 years, including the Jewish Kingdom that ruled over Judea and Samaria. That history and continuity make Israel’s claim far more significant than any other, primarily since no Arab, Palestinian state, or kingdom existed in that territory mandated to Israel.
*How are borders decided?
That takes us to 1917 and the subsequent creation of treaties to establish the legal basis for a sovereign nation’s border. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire and other countries created this need. How does one divide up the lands that the Ottoman Empire and other nations had conquered?
Following WW1, the victors created The League of Nations in 1920. The world needed to oversee a system where nation-building took place in those lands that were former colonies of the defeated nations. The idea was that the victorious powers would not grab political power but create new nation-states overseeing those areas while they were being built.
*The solution to the modern state:
The solution was the mandate system. Palestine was one of those areas that had to be overseen while a modern nation-state was being created. This nation-state was made in the same fashion as others in the middle east and was considered the least problematic. There was very little value and no oil in the lands Mandated to Israel.
Like everywhere else, the world under The League of Nations made a decision. In the case of the British Mandate, Palestine should be a home for the Jewish people.
Why? As mentioned before, there were 3,000 years of continuous presence and connection to the land that no other group had. Therefore, the Jews had a legitimate right to ‘reconstitute’ a national home.
If one argues against this decision, then one has to do the same against all the decisions that created the Middle East countries (along with countries all over the world.)
Article 25 permitted, for convenience sake, a Mandate to be split into parts which the British immediately exercised. The British created Jordan, which lay west of the Jordan River. Has anyone questioned Jordan’s right to exist? The other part was left for the Jewish people. That part contained Judea/Samaria, later known as the West Bank, and all of Jerusalem.
The British Mandate expired in 1948, and Israel declared its independence.
*The aftermath:
Upon Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, the Arab states attacked the new nation. Judea/Samaria and all of Jerusalem were part of the sovereign territory of Israel. Fighting ceased. Based on an armistice agreement, this half of the Mandate was again divided with a green marker pen. The troops of both sides agreed to withdraw to their sides of the green line.
Jordan was now occupying additional land that was sovereign Israeli territory obtained through an act of war. That act of war never changed the legal boundaries constituting the border of Israel. Jordan was an illegal occupying force but was accepted the same way Russia illegally occupies Crimea today, against international law.
*Enter the League of Nations and International agreements
Israel’s territorial rights were guaranteed by treaties and agreements between the nations of the world and the League of Nations, as enumerated and partially explained in an earlier prior response.
One has to ask themselves why those so prejudiced against Israel do not challenge the existence of Jordan? Wasn’t Jordan created under the same set of rules?
Jordan was guilty of occupying the West Bank also based on those rules. Why weren’t they called illegal occupiers? Prejudice and antisemitism are two explanations. Of course, there are others, such as oil and personal power. Come WW2, and we see the entrance of the Nazis and Arabs like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, all that wanted to exterminate the Jews.
*Enter the UN
There is so much history and duplicity that I haven’t written about and won’t at this time, but one has to cover just a bit about the claims based on actions occurring in the UN.
The UN’s only binding powers involve the adoption of its budgets. They do not have international law-making abilities. One could say their abilities are similar to the American House passing a law but then following rules to make what they say legal (Senate and Presidential acceptance). To make things simple, that means the UN resolutions have no practical legality. They require the consent of the parties involved.
However, some assume otherwise even though they will not apply the same rules to other nations. Why? Could prejudice and antisemitism be a reason?
Rules are supposed to be applied the same to all nations. I wish some of those who hate Israel with such intensity understood what the Rule of Law means. Without that, despotism prevails.
*One last point:
Previously, I mentioned “uti posseditis juris.” What does that Latin phrase mean in the context of this discussion?
According to international law, when a new country is created, its borders are the borders of the last geopolitical administrative unit in that area. That includes countries that are emerging from colonialism. The borders are those of the former colony. Though this might be arbitrary, it nonetheless reflects international law. The alternative would be that everything would be up for the taking, creating a volatile world environment. That is why this rule is applied in every other Mandate.
*Just one more point. What are settlements?
What are called settlements are Jewish civilian presence in an area previously illegally occupied by Jordan.
Some people interpret Article 49 of the Geneva convention wrongfully and use that against Israeli families relocating to parts of Israel inside of Israel’s territorial boundaries. Since such relocation is within Israeli territory, there should be no complaint. Article 49 was written to prevent hostile nations (Germany in the 1930s) from sending large numbers of people into territory outside their territorial boundaries while moving those indigenous to the area elsewhere.
Israeli citizens are moving individually from one legal place in Israel to another. This act is nothing more than Israeli citizens (Arab, Jew and Christian) moving from one city to another.
Yadda yadda yadda.
The Chumash lived in the Malibu area for centuries before white people swiped tge land..
Does that mean the Chumash can come back and run people out who have been living here bought and sold for 50+ years?
Nope.
You kick people out of their houses they’re gonna fight back.
Carter didn’t like Israel. Neither does Obama.
.are you proud of your boy Trump telling Nibi to Fucl Off?
Class act
Read your history. The Jews didn’t kick people out. The Jews were kicked out by the Jordanians that occupied territory.
From an earlier response I made.
Upon Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, the Arab states attacked the new nation. Judea/Samaria and all of Jerusalem were part of the sovereign territory of Israel. Fighting ceased. Based on an armistice agreement, this half of the Mandate was again divided with a green marker pen. The troops of both sides agreed to withdraw to their sides of the green line.
Jordan was now occupying additional land that was sovereign Israeli territory obtained through an act of war. That act of war never changed the legal boundaries constituting the border of Israel. Jordan was an illegal occupying force but was accepted the same way Russia illegally occupies Crimea today, against international law.
I helped Rabbi Cunin hoist a super heavy Menorah about a week ago.
I called it Iwo Juden.
And Im helping Rabbi Shifren self publish his book right now.
And Jimmie Carter is as liberal and fair-minded a president as we’ve ever had, and yet:
https://www.axios.com/jimmy-carter-israel-annexation-west-bank-ea839bc6-dfb9-4778-8eff-f25992b0c5e1.html
Former President Jimmy Carter issued a statement on Wednesday calling Israel’s planned annexation of up to 30% of the West Bank a “massive, illegal expropriation of Palestinian territory” that would jeopardize peace treaties and mark the end of any possible two-state solution.
Why it matters: Carter famously brought the leaders of Egypt and Israel together for secret negotiations that resulted in the 1978 Camp David Accords. His statement echoes sentiments expressed by the United Nations, the European Union and Arab nations who believe that annexation will deal a devastating blow to peace efforts.
What he’s saying:
“Israel’s planned annexation of up to 30% of the West Bank as early as today would violate international laws prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force and changing the status of occupied territories. The planned move would violate the Oslo and Camp David Accords and jeopardize Israel’s peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.
For decades, Jewish settlements in the West Bank have expanded, jeopardizing any possible establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. Formal annexation will signal the end of the internationally agreed-upon two-state framework for peace, and with it the possibility for a just solution to the conflict.
The envisioned annexation would amount to a massive, illegal expropriation of Palestinian territory. Annexation must be stopped, and the Israelis and Palestinians should return to meaningful negotiations based on U.N. resolutions and previous bilateral agreements.”
Ben, you and, I am afraid Jimmy Carter, are wrong for multiple reasons, all well documented.
Governments engage in what is best for themselves. The least important factor, in this case, is the truth. Significant factors include oil, money and anti-Semitism.
After the Ottoman Empire fell, the land was divided up. According to International law and the British mandate, the Jews were supposed to get all of today’s Jordan and Israel, including Judea and Samaria. International law created countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and many others. Britain decided to break the Jewish territory into two parts creating Jordan and Israel (including Judea and Samaria). Upon Israel being declared a nation, a lopsided war broke out, and Israel surprisingly survived the onslaughts of nations with armies, tanks and air forces. Jordan ended up OCCUPYING Judea and Samaria. Israel stayed within its borders, but the Arab nations wanted Israel erased from the map. In 1967 Israel retook Judea and Samaria, which was rightfully theirs according to international law.
Jews have been living in Israel for thousands of years. They cultivated the land, and many Arabs immigrated to the area to work on farms and elsewhere.
Arabs within the green line are Israeli citizens. There are Arabs in the Supreme Court and in the Knesset.
You might think about the Arabs that left Israel at their leader’s suggestion. They left voluntarily. If you think they should return, you have to think of a similar number of Jews who were forced to leave their homes in Arab lands under the threat of death.
If Israel doesn’t legally own Samaria and Judea, then most nations in the middle east don’t have ownership of their lands either. If you choose to say who was there first and remained there as an entity, the Jewish Kingdom existed while no Palestinian country ever existed. If you want to base your logic on who was stronger, Jordan owned Judea and Samaria after the Israeli War of Independence and Israel owned it after they took it over.
Every way you look at it except for who has the oil, Israel has a right to exist and has sovereign control over Judea and Samaria. As an anti-Semite, you will disagree and support the side of terrorism that wishes Israel and the Jews to disappear. Remember, during WW2, the Germans and Arabs were allies, hoping to eradicate Jews from the earth.
My name is Benjamin Michael Marcus.
My grandmother was Sarah Josephson Marcus and she was a card-carrying, Oi Vey Gavalting Jewish grandmother
Does that sound like an anti-semite?
I’m a semisemite you dingaling.
I’m gonna go with Jimmy Carter on this one I think.
Ots not anti-Semitism.
It’s anti-selfrighteousism.
.
“My grandmother was Sarah Josephson Marcus and she was a card-carrying, Oi Vey Gavalting Jewish grandmother”
Does that sound like an anti-semite?”
Your grandmother doesn’t sound like an anti-Semite, but you proved yourself one. Blame yourself.
You are free to go with Jimmy Carter, but Israel has a right to exist and a legal right to Samaria and Judea when the facts are looked at. You are not discriminating when it comes to friends. Palestinians can be good decent people, and many support the Israeli government but would be killed if they admitted it. Terrorists are not likable, especially when they blow up school buses and kill innocent civilians.
If you want to prove you aren’t an anti-Semite, do it by claiming ignorance. That is believable.
You kick people out of their houses and raze there neighborhoods you’re gonna have a fight on your hands.
End of story.
Imagine if some native American came to.your house and shot your kids and took your house and claimed an ancestral right to.it?
You wouldn’t like it too.much.
“You kick people out of their houses and raze there neighborhoods you’re gonna have a fight on your hands.”
End of story.”
It sounds like you are talking about Sheikh Jarrah. That was Jewish-owned long before the State of Israel was created. It was forcefully taken from the Jews and returned to the original owners after the 1967 war. There has been a legal battle ever since. Those residing in the homes never had ownership and were paying rent. In essence, it is a landlord-tenant dispute.
End of Story. Your ignorant biases make you into an anti-Semite.
It isn’t the Jews threatening to wipe out all of the Arabs. It is Palestinian Hamas whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, Hezbollah and the Iranian leadership.
End of story.
When one has a hostile, prejudiced attitude towards Jews that the truth cannot correct, one is an anti-Semite.
End of story.
Half of California is desert. We got aquifers.
Israel desalibates. Mystery solved.
Mel Gibson was right, tge Jews are responsible for all the world’s wars.
I’m actually half Jewish.
Is that why you’re so obnoxiously wrong?
.in producing a book for The Surfing Rabbi as we speak
“I’m actually half Jewish.”, but 100% moron.
“Mel Gibson was right, tge Jews are responsible for all the world’s wars.”
Anyone who believes that must receive a downward intelligence classification. You go from moron to idiot.
Anti-Semites come in all different colors, but for the most part are morons.
I’m a semisemite.
I don’t hate Jews as a group,
I judge by individuals.
But every once in a while you come across sneery, self-righteous, passive-aggressive person who makes one understand why the Jews have had so much trouble throughout history.
And again, I helped Rabbi Cunin hoist a giant metal menorah the other day, and I am helping Nachum Shifren – the Surfing Rabbi – finish his book as we speak.
You are an anti-Semite. The rest is BS.
I know, I know. Some of your best friends are Jewish. You are still an anti-Semite.
504,568,620,004.1 gallons a year used by Israel as opposed to 13 trillion used by California.
What is the GDP of Israel? $408,000,000,000
California is $3,300,000,000,000
Israel desalinates water.
NEXT!!!!!
I see you finally looked something up and got part of an answer.
Israel desalinates water, and the country has plenty of water for its citizens, its farmlands in the desert and exports.
What is wrong with California, with such wealth, but constantly runs out of water and electricity? That should tell you something
I already told you. 40 million people.
1/9th the population of the entire country = Infrastructure problems.
People aren’t leaving fast enough.
Ben, again you are sounding like a dummy.
Pearls before swine.
California did not always have the horrible management it has today.
𝐘𝐞𝐚𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 $𝟑𝟖 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬 – 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐆𝐃𝐏 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐲 𝐑𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮’𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦.
Today, it is almost wholly a Democrat state, which explains why the state looks so bad.
𝐘𝐞𝐚𝐡 𝐁𝐢𝐠 𝐒𝐮𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐘𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐰𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐚𝐧 𝐉𝐨𝐚𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐧 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐋𝐨𝐦𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐲 𝐁𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐰𝐟𝐮𝐥.
𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐝.
Looting, tent cities, violence and many other things accompany Democrat disasters.
Look at other strongholds of Democrat leadership such as Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit.
𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐩 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞.
𝐒𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐢𝐞𝐠𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬.
𝐖𝐚𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐤𝐢 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐝. 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐃𝐂 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐝.
𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐞𝐰, 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐟𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮’𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲, 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞.
𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐨𝐧 𝐅𝐨𝐱, 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮’𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞.
California probably has the best geography in the world for any major area.
𝐘𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐁𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞.
That makes California an economic powerhouse that suffers a morally depraved government when Democrats occupy the seat of government.
Morally depraved? Really? Was it the Democrats
𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐝?
𝐎𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭, 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐯𝐮𝐥𝐠𝐚𝐫, 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭, 𝐩𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐲-𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐰𝐢𝐟𝐞-𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐬𝐚𝐝-𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐫-𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐠𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠-𝐚𝐧𝐝-𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭-𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲-𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐭-𝐝𝐨𝐝𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐭𝐚𝐱-𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐋𝐲𝐬𝐨𝐥-𝐡𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐮𝐝-𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐭-𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐞-𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲,
𝐎𝐡 𝐧𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐭, 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐛𝐲 𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐠𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧.
That is why a state loaded with water doesn’t have enough of it,
𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝟑𝟖 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝟒𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝟕𝟎𝟓 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞.
𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝟐𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 $𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧 – 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐆𝐃𝐏 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝, 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐲 𝐑𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮’𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦.
𝟑𝟖,𝟎𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐱 𝟑𝟔𝟓 = 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝟏𝟑,𝟖𝟕𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.
𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.
𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐞𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐠𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐝𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐫, 𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝.
and a state that should be able to provide electricity to all can’t.
𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 – 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐚𝐲 – 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟎. 𝐆𝐞𝐞! 𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬! 𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬!
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝟏/𝟗𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐨𝐬 𝐀𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐝𝐚𝐡𝐨 𝐨𝐫 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐝𝐚 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦.
𝐈𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝟏𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 = 𝐧𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞.
𝐒𝐨 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞.
It is even unable to manage its wonderful forests leading to forest fires destroying the environment and homes its citizens live in.
𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 – 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐚𝐲 – 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟎. 𝐆𝐞𝐞! 𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬! 𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬!
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝟏/𝟗𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐨𝐬 𝐀𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐝𝐚𝐡𝐨 𝐨𝐫 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐝𝐚 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦.
𝐈𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝟏𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 = 𝐧𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞.
𝐒𝐨 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞.
It has wonderful ports where ships worldwide can wait to enter months just to unload their products that are in high demand.
𝐘𝐞𝐩 𝐢𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐮𝐬𝐞.
𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚’𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.
What does California haves that most wouldn’t want?
𝐘𝐞𝐩 𝐢𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐮𝐬𝐞.
𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚’𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.
Depraved people like you are ignorant of the world around them and living off the scraps others throw.
𝐈 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐈’𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞.
𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐲: 𝐋𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐝, 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞.
𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐮𝐥.
The democrats have nothing to do with the economy that thrives in spite of them. Did they create farms and farm land? Space X and Tesla are fleeing to Texas to escape the Dems mismanagement of the economy, watch for others to join them.
Erik,
I know of at least one huge farming enterprise that is almost fed up with California stupidity and is thinking of relocating to Colorado. As one manager said, “We can grow carrots in Colorado.”
The CA liberals are lame and too timid. They need this to apply to anyone who sells any gun, and make the bounty $1 M. Going after something that is already illegal is dumb.
The right-wing has screamed “states rights” forever, now the conservative activists on the SCOTUS has opened the door, they will be the first ones to say, not so fast to others. Like it or not, this SCOTUS is politically motivated and will rule accordingly.
Fishwings,
I believe the intent here is to force the Supreme Court to face its current stance. Exposing its bias. It’s exactly what the Chief Justice feared would happen. Sotomayor was right. The conservatives in the court will be seen as hypocrites if they choose to stay the California law, but not Texas.
The Texas abortion law were modeled after the lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
Given the rarity with which attorney fees are rewarded, the legal system is now really a tool of the rich and powerful. There’s little capability to get justice. Given that so many democrat prosecutors, judges and legislatures appear to be using the government as a political tool, this is a serious problem. Given that social media may be operating in violation of anti-trust laws-as suggested by European court action in that direction-therefore the collusion between social media to censor is an extremely large problem in which fundamental rights are essentially destroyed by the activities of social media acting in concert and on behalf of government.
Now even the folks in Beverly Hills are arming up.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/09/beverly-hills-residents-arming-themselves-after-murder-violence
Why not?
First they say nobody needs guns because we have police.
Then they disband or neuter the police.
Then they open the prisons and flood the streets with dangerous criminals and psychopaths.
Then LAPD warns tourists to stay away because they won’t be safe.
https://www.weaselzippers.us/477251-lapd-tells-people-not-to-visit-the-dem-run-city-we-cant-guarantee-your-safety-like-movie-the-purge
Then anti-gun liberals buy guns.
Progressives in government are champion gun salesmen.
(music to the tune of Send lawyers guns and money)
Well I went out with a waitress…
That I hardly knew.
How was I to know…
She worked for Newsom too?
Last year over 485000 Americans died from smoking tobacco or vaping. Every person who was sold tobacco or vape and every relative of sick or dead people should have a right to sue the tobacco companies and those who sold.
Vaping has saved countless lives as it is the best method currently available to get people off of traditional cigarettes. If it weren’t for that I’d still be at 4 packs a day. It is quite literally a 95%+ reduction in harm. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the merely very, very good.
I don’t like sand. It’s rough, coarse, irritating…and it gets everywhere.
Fear the government that fears your guns. What Russia is doing to Ukraine is why we need guns.
“[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” Acquired? That’s a rather frightening turn of phrase coming from the Chief Justice. I sincerely hope he meant to say “recognized and upheld”.
Your point is well-taken. I would only add a clarification that your “phrase coming from the Chief Justice” refers to then-Chief Justice Marshall,- not current Chief Rehnquist, who simply kept the quoted portion of the 1809 decision intact. Notwithstanding, it is clear that Rehnquist holds similar concern.
This is dumber than usual by TURLEY. The purpose of such a proposal is to show how radical the current Court is. You boys got your 6-3 majority and you continue to overplay your hand. More and more Americans are seeing the Federalist Society attack on majority rights as illegitimate. When the Court strike down this California law, after refusing twice now, to even enjoin the Texas one, a little more legitimacy will be stripped from the Court with normals.
Admitting a proposed contravention of American’s rights is nothing more than a political posturing episode is a strange way to try and convince folks ‘your side’ is in the right. But with moral blinders on, you don’t even realize that, I’d imagine.
More and more Americans are seeing the Federalist Society attack on majority rights as illegitimate.
Actually, more and more Americans are seeing the Federalist Society defend the minority from the “mob rule” of the majority.
And here in a nutshell is the liberal agenda:
Attack guns because they enable the weak to defend themselves.
Defend a mother’s right to kill her child because that child might be inconvenient.
Liberals are ugly people.
A fetus is not a child. You may believe that it is, but others will disagree. You call the liberals ugly and we call the MAGA fascists ugly.
“Fascists”-someone doesn’t know what that word means.
Mask mandates
IRS spying
Forced bathroom sharing
There are fascists in America, but it’s not conservatives.
Lying about Election Fraud to retain power at all costs then inspiring a mob of red-hatted brown shirts to raid the Capitol and disrupt an election.
What does that sound like?
Gimme an F!!!
And let’s hope all tge dummies ignore the mask mandates and vaccinations and thin the dummy supply.
You left out voter suppression, violent tenancies, hatred of minorities and immigrants, religious fanaticism, and a rejection of the concept of people voting for their leaders.
Yep those too.
The support for Trump helps me understand how the German people could have supported Hitler and Nazism out of ignorance, arrogance, fear, insecurity, stupidity, hatred, racism and self-interest.
Had it, recovered just fine, now immune. Never once put on a filthy mask and I never will.
“A fetus is not a child.”
Playing word games? A fetus is a developing human, just like an infant is a developing human and an adolescent is a developing human. Each stage of development might have a different name but each stage is human.
You need to better define your position so it doesn’t look like slop.
Of course Newsom is playing politics. Overturning Roe on the backs of vigilante bounty hunters is a crisis, and brass knuckle politics is not inappropriate.
Point is: You spend way more ink decrying CA’s unconstitutionality than Texas’… It’s a problematic pattern, Counsellor.
ND Gryphon,
Until I saw your thoughts, I must say that I never thought of the link being a “Bounty Hunter” with abortionists. If you really come to think about it, abortion is exactly that!
Only in this case, it is not DEAD or ALIVE, those who have a bounty on them have no chance of life. Unless the mother changes her mind and does not pay for the abortion, the abortionist always gets their money.
Many thanks for clarifying that for me.
Hey if Texas can be whack and pass stupid laws, why can’t California?
Go Gavin.
That dude has sand.
California is way ahead of Texas in being whack and passing stupid laws
California is way ahead of Texas in GDP, influence, innovation, production and prosperity.
California even.produces better quarterbacks Than Texas.
Texas is arrogant and arrogant people are always hiding something.
Ben: “arrogant people are always hiding something.”
+++
So what are you hiding?
Ben hides his miserable failure in plain sight.
Ben — In 2018 and 2019, about 80,000 people a year made the move from California to Texas. Just sayin.
Good. They aren’t moving fast enough.
Between 1960 and now the population of California has increased 1000 people a day.
Every day.
Let 10 million people move to Texas and see how Texas likes having 1/9th the population of the entire country.
See if you’ll enjoy water shortages and power blackouts because of too many people crammed into one state.
Drain 10 million people out of California and this state will run much easier.
My friend CB just moved to Austin.
He don’t like it.
Musk and all the others be moving to Texas because it’s cheap.
California ain’t cheap.
It’s expensive for a reason.
Austin is Nutjob Central. I don’t blame him for not liking it.
It’s in Texas. What you expect?
Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution guns and the second amendment are.
Left coast lunacy once again reeks havoc for us all!!!!!!
“Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution . . .”
Neither is medical choices. Which means, what — that such choices (e.g., to vaccinate or not) are not a right — and that government can control your health care?
Some people cannot, or do not want, to see the broader implications of their own premises.
Between his ears, certainly. The right to bear arms has its very own Amendment. Where’s the one guaranteeing the right to kill in-utero infants, spelled out in so many words?
I wonder if this is so clearly unconstitutional. Does the right to have a handgun in the home for purposes of self defense, which I believe is what was declared in Heller and MacDonald, mean that there is a right to manufacture, distribute and sell assault weapons and ghost guns?
Yeah, sand in his pants. Eventually, the weight of all those political shenanigans will pull his pants down, and the World will see the Emperor with no clothes
I am not the same Anonymous who commented at 9:31 and 9:49 a.m.
Turley missed a key point in the latest Supreme Court ruling. He states,
“ Second, the Supreme Court just allowed pre-enforcement challenges so the California law could be challenged to avoid any “chilling effect” on gun rights.”
Yes, after twice allowing the Texas law to remain in effect and having a “chilling effect”. It’s the entire purpose of the Texas law. Supreme Court Justice Thomas himself doesn’t think the “chilling effect” of a law is enough to issue a stay. Sotomayor was right when she noted that other rights can be undermined by using the same type of law.
The very fact that the Supreme Court didn’t stay the law TWICE despite it being blatantly unconstitutional it was being complicit in allowing it to remain and would look quite hypocritical by staying the California law the first time around if it came their way.
If California does pass an exact replica of the Texas law towards guns the Supreme courts would be forced to address the unconstitutionality of the enforcement mechanism.
Turley points out that the law targeted at anyone including manufacturers is irrelevant. Because the enforcement mechanism is what the Supreme Court still refuses to stay. It’s what “chills” any activity. Gun manufacturers can hesitate because of an avalanche of lawsuits or any gun owners could.
As the conservatives have often pointed out. The way the Texas law can be declared unconstitutional is by violating it first.
“Hey if Texas can be whack and pass stupid laws, why can’t California?”
We well know you like and engage in that type of stupid logic.
“. . . that type of stupid logic.”
Why is that “stupid logic?”
It’s the consistent application of the same *method* and means (enabling acts) The only difference is the ends.
Turnabout is fair play.
At least Newsom isn’t bragging that California produces better quarterbacks than Texas.
That’s a sore point down there.
How would we like it if Texas produced better surfers or better weed?