<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I Don&#8217;t Like It == It&#8217;s Unconstitutional</title>
	<atom:link href="http://xrlq.com/2008/12/19/i-dont-like-it-its-unconstitutional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://xrlq.com/2008/12/19/i-dont-like-it-its-unconstitutional/</link>
	<description>Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:31:05 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Xrlq</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2008/12/19/i-dont-like-it-its-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-470273</link>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:11:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=4174#comment-470273</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know for sure that that&#039;s the only applicable requirement.  All I do know is that the California Constitution contains no requirement that the AG be an attorney at all, and that a Google search for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?q=california+attorney+general+five+years+bar+member&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;california attorney general five years bar member&lt;/a&gt; yielded only &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metnews.com/articles/2006/delb102006.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one hit&lt;/a&gt; to a story about the frivolous challenges to Jerry Moonbeam&#039;s candidacy, which cited 12503 only.  Adding &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&amp;hs=9cW&amp;q=Brown+california+attorney+general+five+years+bar+member&amp;btnG=Search&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Brown&quot;&lt;/a&gt; to the search terms yielded more &lt;a href=&quot;http://politicalvanguard.com/index.php?id=abrahms&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;screeching&lt;/a&gt; but no more substance beyond &lt;a href=&quot;http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_/ai_n16806955&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one other article&lt;/a&gt; that also cited only Section 12503.

Case closed, as far as I&#039;m concerned.  This suit was a turkey, right up there with the goofy suits that argued that Barack Hussein Obama isn&#039;t a natural born citizen because his middle name is Hussein, or whatever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know for sure that that&#8217;s the only applicable requirement.  All I do know is that the California Constitution contains no requirement that the AG be an attorney at all, and that a Google search for <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=california+attorney+general+five+years+bar+member&#038;ie=utf-8&#038;oe=utf-8&#038;aq=t&#038;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&#038;client=firefox-a" rel="nofollow">california attorney general five years bar member</a> yielded only <a href="http://www.metnews.com/articles/2006/delb102006.htm" rel="nofollow">one hit</a> to a story about the frivolous challenges to Jerry Moonbeam&#8217;s candidacy, which cited 12503 only.  Adding <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&#038;client=firefox-a&#038;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&#038;hs=9cW&#038;q=Brown+california+attorney+general+five+years+bar+member&#038;btnG=Search" rel="nofollow">&#8220;Brown&#8221;</a> to the search terms yielded more <a href="http://politicalvanguard.com/index.php?id=abrahms" rel="nofollow">screeching</a> but no more substance beyond <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_/ai_n16806955" rel="nofollow">one other article</a> that also cited only Section 12503.</p>
<p>Case closed, as far as I&#8217;m concerned.  This suit was a turkey, right up there with the goofy suits that argued that Barack Hussein Obama isn&#8217;t a natural born citizen because his middle name is Hussein, or whatever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: McGehee</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2008/12/19/i-dont-like-it-its-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-470270</link>
		<dc:creator>McGehee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:53:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=4174#comment-470270</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m torn between agreeing with you about all that, and asking if you&#039;re sure that&#039;s the only applicable rule.

I&#039;ve never been a lawyer, in California or anywhere else, but I do seem to recall that even the state&#039;s constitution is a disorganized grab-bag of scattered crap. Statutory law, I&#039;d be astonished if it were any better.

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;McGehee&#180;s last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://mcgeheezone.com/index.php/bandaids/content/still_too_much_after_all_these_years/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Still Too Much After All These Years&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m torn between agreeing with you about all that, and asking if you&#8217;re sure that&#8217;s the only applicable rule.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never been a lawyer, in California or anywhere else, but I do seem to recall that even the state&#8217;s constitution is a disorganized grab-bag of scattered crap. Statutory law, I&#8217;d be astonished if it were any better.</p>
<p><abbr><em>McGehee&#180;s last blog post..<a href="http://mcgeheezone.com/index.php/bandaids/content/still_too_much_after_all_these_years/" rel="nofollow">Still Too Much After All These Years</a></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xrlq</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2008/12/19/i-dont-like-it-its-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-470239</link>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:35:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=4174#comment-470239</guid>
		<description>McGehee, I found the statute in question, which is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&amp;group=12001-13000&amp;file=12500-12504&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Government Code Section 12503.&lt;/a&gt;  That statute reads, in full:

&lt;blockquote&gt;No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I don&#039;t see anything in there requiring the AG to be an active member of the bar even at the time of election, let alone for the five year period preceding it.  Of course you can&#039;t tell that from reading the crappy article, which puts quotation marks around something that either wasn&#039;t a quote at all, or &lt;em&gt;was&lt;/em&gt; a quote from some crank lawyer&#039;s brief, and not from the statute the article purports to be discussing.  Unfortunately, when it comes to reporting on court cases, journalistic malpractice is more the rule than the exception.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>McGehee, I found the statute in question, which is <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&#038;group=12001-13000&#038;file=12500-12504" rel="nofollow">Government Code Section 12503.</a>  That statute reads, in full:</p>
<blockquote><p>No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office.</p></blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t see anything in there requiring the AG to be an active member of the bar even at the time of election, let alone for the five year period preceding it.  Of course you can&#8217;t tell that from reading the crappy article, which puts quotation marks around something that either wasn&#8217;t a quote at all, or <em>was</em> a quote from some crank lawyer&#8217;s brief, and not from the statute the article purports to be discussing.  Unfortunately, when it comes to reporting on court cases, journalistic malpractice is more the rule than the exception.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: McGehee</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2008/12/19/i-dont-like-it-its-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-470166</link>
		<dc:creator>McGehee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=4174#comment-470166</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t have access to the full article either (Scroogle brings up only my site and a &quot;MyLibrary&quot; teaser) but I&#039;m pretty sure I didn&#039;t see any rebuttal of the use of &quot;uninterrupted&quot; in quoptes, or the phrasing &lt;i&gt;&quot;the&lt;/i&gt; five years prior,&quot; both of which imply both continuous, and current at the time of the election.

Seems to me if the judge&#039;s ruling turned on refuting the wording used in the complaint, the article ought to have said so. Instead it left an unmistakable impression that the judge regards the qualification itself as immaterial.

But you;re right, that could at least as easily be journalistic malpractice as judicial.

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;McGehee&#180;s last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://mcgeheezone.com/index.php/bandaids/content/is_it_january_yet/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Is It January Yet?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t have access to the full article either (Scroogle brings up only my site and a &#8220;MyLibrary&#8221; teaser) but I&#8217;m pretty sure I didn&#8217;t see any rebuttal of the use of &#8220;uninterrupted&#8221; in quoptes, or the phrasing <i>&#8220;the</i> five years prior,&#8221; both of which imply both continuous, and current at the time of the election.</p>
<p>Seems to me if the judge&#8217;s ruling turned on refuting the wording used in the complaint, the article ought to have said so. Instead it left an unmistakable impression that the judge regards the qualification itself as immaterial.</p>
<p>But you;re right, that could at least as easily be journalistic malpractice as judicial.</p>
<p><abbr><em>McGehee&#180;s last blog post..<a href="http://mcgeheezone.com/index.php/bandaids/content/is_it_january_yet/" rel="nofollow">Is It January Yet?</a></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William Teach</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2008/12/19/i-dont-like-it-its-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-470135</link>
		<dc:creator>William Teach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:31:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=4174#comment-470135</guid>
		<description>I just wonder who got the Moonbeam? And who might have paid him off or offered some sort of quid pro quo? A bit of a conspiracy theory, but, ya never know.

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;William Teach&#180;s last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/12/20/jerry-brown-says-thwart-the-will-of-californians/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jerry Brown Says “Thwart The Will Of Californians”&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just wonder who got the Moonbeam? And who might have paid him off or offered some sort of quid pro quo? A bit of a conspiracy theory, but, ya never know.</p>
<p><abbr><em>William Teach&#180;s last blog post..<a href="http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/12/20/jerry-brown-says-thwart-the-will-of-californians/" rel="nofollow">Jerry Brown Says “Thwart The Will Of Californians”</a></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xrlq</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2008/12/19/i-dont-like-it-its-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-470110</link>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:04:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=4174#comment-470110</guid>
		<description>Due to link rot, I can&#039;t find the original article and haven&#039;t read the case, nor do I have ready access to the actual rule.  Do you?  Does it lend itself to an alternative reading that the AG must have been a continuous member for 5 years, and must be an active member at the time of election, but need not have been active for 5 years continuously?  Not thinking of moving back to CA to run for AG myself, but if I do, how far in advance do I need to plan?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Due to link rot, I can&#8217;t find the original article and haven&#8217;t read the case, nor do I have ready access to the actual rule.  Do you?  Does it lend itself to an alternative reading that the AG must have been a continuous member for 5 years, and must be an active member at the time of election, but need not have been active for 5 years continuously?  Not thinking of moving back to CA to run for AG myself, but if I do, how far in advance do I need to plan?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: McGehee</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2008/12/19/i-dont-like-it-its-unconstitutional/comment-page-1/#comment-470046</link>
		<dc:creator>McGehee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=4174#comment-470046</guid>
		<description>Apparently so. In California at least, the state supreme court effectively ruled that an attorney general &lt;a href=&quot;http://mcgeheezone.com/index.php/bandaids/content/did_bill_clinton_become_a_california_judge_and_i_missed_it/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;doesn&#039;t need to be qualified&lt;/a&gt; in order to be elected and hold office (at least, that was my snarky take on it at the time).

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;McGehee&#180;s last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://mcgeheezone.com/index.php/bandaids/content/adventures_in_christmas_shopping/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Adventures in Christmas Shopping&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently so. In California at least, the state supreme court effectively ruled that an attorney general <a href="http://mcgeheezone.com/index.php/bandaids/content/did_bill_clinton_become_a_california_judge_and_i_missed_it/" rel="nofollow">doesn&#8217;t need to be qualified</a> in order to be elected and hold office (at least, that was my snarky take on it at the time).</p>
<p><abbr><em>McGehee&#180;s last blog post..<a href="http://mcgeheezone.com/index.php/bandaids/content/adventures_in_christmas_shopping/" rel="nofollow">Adventures in Christmas Shopping</a></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
