Revolt In Blue? (California)

Investors Business Daily ^ | June 30, 2006 | IBD

[staytrue]

My original reply (51) was regarding east coast/inner city black ghettos.

IN CA, your stats may be right.

Nationwide, the stats still say blacks are doing worse than hispanics.

In CA, you simply don't have the inner city black ghettos of the east and midwest. Put the stats for detroit, chicago, etc. back in the mix and the hispanics are better.

[Torie]

California at this point really has very few low black ghettos anymore, except in a very few census tracts. Most of the formerly low income black census tracts now are more Hispanic than black. Compton might be the exception. But yes, in places where the Hispanic wave has not hit big time, it is a different world.

[LibertarianInExile]

"conservatives stayed home, instead of supporting those propositions, and they were all resoundingly defeated."

You have made that bold assertion before. Please substantiate it, with polling data proving it.

[Alia]

I perceive the analysis is correct. I keep on dipping my toes back into the CA community, statewide. Folks, newspapers, articles.

[ElkGroveDan]

It would pass today, if there were no Hispanic voters.

Hispanics supported Prop 22 by a greater margin than the rest of the population, 65%.

[jwalsh07]

You weigh in on Hamdan anywhere?

[marajade]

" ... free food stamps for illegal immigrants ..."

That's a lie.

[Torie]

No, I have not read the decision.

[garbageseeker]

The truth hurts.

[Torie]

"Worst of all is the Court's reliance on the legislative history of the DTA to buttress its implausible reading of §1005(e)(1). We have repeatedly held that such reliance is impermissible where, as here, the statutory language is unambiguous. But the Court nevertheless relies both on floor statements from the Senate and (quite heavily) on the drafting history of the DTA. To begin with floor statements: The Court urges that some "statements made by Senators preceding passage of the Act lend further support to" the Court's interpretation, citing excerpts from the floor debate that support its view, ante, 15-16, n. 10. The Court immediately goes on to discount numerous floor statements by the DTA's sponsors that flatly contradict its view, because "those statements appear to have been inserted into the Congressional Record after the Senate debate." Ibid. Of course this observation, even if true, makes no difference unless one indulges the fantasy that Senate floor speeches are attended (like the Philippics of Demosthenes) by throngs of eager listeners, instead of being delivered (like Demosthenes' practice sessions on the beach) alone into a vast emptiness. Whether the floor statements are spoken where no Senator hears, or written where no Senator reads, they represent at most the views of a single Senator.

Quote of the day from Justice Scalia in his dissent.

The case is very complicated, to say the least. In any event, it only covers pending Habeas Corpus petitions as of the end of last year, and Congress can pass a statute if it so chooses explicitly stripping jurisdiction of pending cases. That would render moot the legal arguments of whether or not such a stripping was a reasonable interpretation of the existing statute, based on prior Court precedents and a fair reading of the statute as a whole, and thus the holding in Hamdan.

[airborne]

Deal with illegal immigration.

Enforce existing laws.

Stop financing liberalism.

(i know, but i can dream)

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Great post, FairOpinion. I remember Dennis Prager begging the voters to support the propositions. One of them failed by only a couple of percentage points. The Dems spent a lot of money to keep the status quo, but still, it was sickening. Especially the parental notification proposition.

My two sisters in law are both teachers with money in CALPERS. What will happen? Is it a Ponzi scheme or some such?