Dr. Bill Atwood

State Supreme Court took a cowardly path in quashing vote on 3-state initiative

In this June 18, 2018, photo, venture capitalist Tim Draper points to a computer screen at his offices in San Mateo, Calif., showing that an initiative to split California into three states qualified for the ballot. Opponents of an initiative are asking the state Supreme Court to pull the measure from the ballot.  (AP Photo/Haven Daley)
In this June 18, 2018, photo, venture capitalist Tim Draper points to a computer screen at his offices in San Mateo, Calif., showing that an initiative to split California into three states qualified for the ballot. Opponents of an initiative are asking the state Supreme Court to pull the measure from the ballot. (AP Photo/Haven Daley) AP

Last week the state Supreme Court assaulted the citizens by removing the ballot initiative that would begin the process of dividing this state into three different entities.

In 1911 California adopted into its constitution the concept of initiative, referendum and recall which gave the citizens a check on the power of elected officials.

The concept of splitting up this state has little to zero chance of passage for a number of reasons. First, the takers who want free stuff would see that the funding sources in much of the state would no longer be obligated to support the socialism of income redistribution through welfare. Second, there are many environmentalist wackos who would bemoan that the three-toed warblesnatcher might lose its protection in one or two of the separated new states. Third, the lawyers would see the great opportunity to spend tens of thousands of hours trying to separate each entity’s departments which would mean dividing equipment, resources, responsibilities and I fear that even if they started today my 3-year-old great nephew Liam would be in his 70s by the time they settled those issues.

The fact is that once the initiative had been passed the legislators would have to act on it, the governor would have to act on it and then the entire Congress of the United States would have to agree on the details.

I really like the concept of a two-state division and not a three-state split. I like the idea because it would be an easier split because we could separate the urban centers of the coast line, Los Angeles and the Bay Area, away from the rest of us. They would have the votes to do the liberal stuff they enjoy and the rest of us could feel much safer from their regulations, taxes and social causes and live better lives. It would be far easier to handle the state financial obligations of bonds and pensions with a two-way split.

Getting back to my first point. The black-robed justices once again ignored the will of the people to place before themselves a ballot initiative to express their feelings and opinions on such an issue. I think the liberals were afraid of the thinking of the masses. The elitist jurists see themselves as activists who are able to tell us what is best for us. The liberals nationally are talking about resisting everything that the conservatives and Trump support. Rep. Maxine Waters urges folks to harass Trump loyalists. Liberals are calling folks traitors, Nazis, fascists, racists, homophobes, bigots and a host of other names not to mention Hillary Clinton telling folks that half the country is deplorable.

What the intolerant justices showed with their ruling last week was their idea that the people don’t know what is best for them which translates into, “We progressives are smarter than you.”

They are also deathly afraid of learning some reality in the world. The initiative might have failed and may have passed but the elected and appointed ones would have to recognize the level of discontent that the legal citizens of this state have for the arrogant uppity pompous thinking of those whom we have entrusted with an office.

Waters and her ilk are going to find that there will come a time when the majority of citizens in this country will join a resistance movement and there will be firebrands of liberty who will invoke the names of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Washington.

The initiative would have sparked quite a conversation. Why are they afraid to discuss this issue?

  Comments