Main Menu

Kreep strikes back

Newly-elected San Diego Superior Court Judge Gary Kreep threatens “action” against the San Diego Bar Association, who rated him “lacking in qualifications” in his successful his run for the judgeship. Bar Association President Marvin Mizell said that this is the first time a person with this rating has been elected so far as he is aware.

Kreep says it’s anti-religious and political bigotry (Kreep is against abortion and gay marriage), but Mizell says religion and politics are not a factor in the rating by 21 members of the bar. Check out station KPBS’ report of the story.

, , ,

40 Responses to Kreep strikes back

  1. avatar
    US Citizen July 2, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    That’s a new slant— The sore winner.

  2. avatar
    G July 2, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    Agreed… although I’m not sure if it is really “new” at all.

    People driven by a false sense of self-entitlement, via bigotry and fundamentalist tribalism, are always looking for and needing “enemies”. We are just more used to hearing about their sorry antics from when they are throwing tantrums about their losses, lately.

    But even when they “win” something, they still pull the same “goalpost shifting” tactics and are never satisfied. They STILL will create a NEW excuse and new enemy to decry their righteous personal martyrdom complex, while ironically using that justification to launch their next crusade of persecuting others…

    That is why it is utterly foolish to ever pursue a policy of “appeasement” with such folk. Give them an inch and they will just be emboldened to demand even more outrageous witch hunts…

    US Citizen:
    That’s a new slant— The sore winner.

  3. avatar
    y_p_w July 2, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    G: That is why it is utterly foolish to ever pursue a policy of “appeasement” with such folk. Give them an inch and they will just be emboldened to demand even more outrageous witch hunts…

    There is a way out of this:

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=10001-11000&file=11000-11007

    ELECTIONS CODE
    SECTION 11000-11007

    11000. This division governs the recall of elective officers of the
    State of California and of all counties, cities, school districts,
    county boards of education, community college districts, special
    districts, and judges of courts of appeal and trial courts. It does
    not supersede the provisions of a city charter or county charter, or
    of ordinances adopted pursuant to a city charter or county charter,
    relating to recall.

    11001. For the purposes of this division, judges of courts of
    appeal shall be considered state officers, and judges of trial courts
    shall be considered county officers.

    11002. For the purposes of this division, “elections official”
    means one of the following:
    (a) A county elections official in the case of the recall of
    elective officers of a county, school district, county board of
    education, community college district, or resident voting district,
    and of judges of trial courts.
    (b) A city elections official, including, but not necessarily
    limited to, a city clerk, in the case of the recall of elective
    officers of a city.
    (c) The secretary of the governing board in the case of the recall
    of elective officers of a landowner voting district or any district
    in which, at a regular election, candidate’s nomination papers are
    filed with the secretary of the governing board.

    11003. For the purposes of this division, “governing board” means a
    city council, the board of supervisors of a county, the board of
    trustees of a school district or community college district, or the
    legislative body of a special district, as the context requires. In
    the case of the recall of a trial court judge, “governing board”
    means the board of supervisors.

    11004. For the purposes of this division, a “local officer” is an
    elective officer of a city, county, school district, community
    college district, or special district, or a judge of a trial court.

    11005. The proponents of a recall must be registered voters of the
    electoral jurisdiction of the officer they seek to recall.

    11006. Proceedings may be commenced for the recall of any elective
    officer, including any officer appointed in lieu of election or to
    fill a vacancy, by the service, filing and publication or posting of
    a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition pursuant to this
    chapter.

    11007. Except when a person has been appointed to office pursuant
    to Section 10229 because no person had been nominated to office,
    proceedings may not be commenced against an officer of a city,
    county, special district, school district, community college
    district, or county board of education in the event of one or more of
    any of the following:
    (a) He or she has not held office during his current term for more
    than 90 days.
    (b) A recall election has been determined in his or her favor
    within the last six months.
    (c) His or her term of office ends within six months or less.

    Of course most have come to the conclusion that he’s probably going to be assigned to some menial court with little prestige and is highly unlikely to get anywhere where he can actually make an impact. All it would take is for him to do something highly unusual, stupid, and unenforceable – such as sign a warrant for the arrest of President Obama, and there are other avenues for removal of a judge. The California Assembly can impeach a judge and the Senate can convict on a 2/3 majority. There is also a Commission on Judicial Performance which can recommend that a judge be removed, with the final arbiter the California Supreme Court. If there’s a hearing, I might just go watch.

    http://cjp.ca.gov/

  4. avatar
    Sean July 2, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    I’ll get you back.

  5. avatar
    bgansel9 July 2, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    So, am I to understand that this is step 1 in trying to get positioned to rule over a birther case?

  6. avatar
    y_p_w July 2, 2012 at 11:32 pm #

    bgansel9:
    So, am I to understand that this is step 1 in trying to get positioned to rule over a birther case?

    I’m pretty sure that no presiding judge would ever assign him to a position where he could ever rule on a birther case. Since the consolidation of California courts, even a “Superior Court Judge” could be assigned to the menial courts – maybe traffic court where he’d have a tough time trying to justify doing anything birther related. If he ever decided to “freelance” by randomly issuing something like a search warrant on the White House, I’m pretty sure he’d be shot down so fast he’d be removed within weeks.

  7. avatar
    Retired Lawyer July 3, 2012 at 12:14 am #

    I am not that familiar with current San Diego county assignments, however, all California courts have just received notice from the state that there will be massive funding cuts. Massive on the order of 25% reduction in total funding, coming after last year’s 10% reduction in funds.

    LA county has just fired every non-judge judicial officer, (Courts in California hire people to act as judges, without being elected judges.) This basically means that there will be no Juvenile court referees, no family law commissioners, no commissioners running arraignments. So, there will be a lot of non-critical areas they can put Mr. K. There is also being the “on-call” judge issuing after-hours search and arrest warrants.

  8. avatar
    y_p_w July 3, 2012 at 1:29 am #

    Retired Lawyer: There is also being the “on-call” judge issuing after-hours search and arrest warrants.

    Would any sane, presiding judge want him in a position where he might be regularly issuing warrants. I brought up the possibility that some birther approaches him for a request for a search warrant on the White House or maybe the Hawaii DOH. I know that would be an abuse of the position, but would he have the chutzpah to just try it? I don’t think anything of the sort would be enforceable, but it would give the birthers the claim that “a judge issued a warrant for Obama’s records”.

    Maybe just give the guy small claims? How about juvenile delinquency? Whatever could put him as far away from achieving birther mischief as possible.

  9. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn July 3, 2012 at 5:57 am #

    Well, who should be surprised at this? Joe is their example at striking out against one’s critics.

    As for him not having a birther case: I wouldn’t be surprised if someone tries to turn whatever he is placed over into a birther case.

  10. avatar
    Keith July 3, 2012 at 7:18 am #

    Bran Mak Morn: As for him not having a birther case: I wouldn’t be surprised if someone tries to turn whatever he is placed over into a birther case.

    Suppose Kreep is assigned traffic court.

    Some lady dentist gets a speeding ticket on I5. So her defense is that I5 was built with the Feds Money and recent upgrades were part of the stimulus. She claims she was only speeding because she needed to pass a military convoy between Miramar AFB and NB San Diego. The highway upgrades and the convoy were at the behest of an illegal usurper President with too many Social Security numbers, a foreigner father, a funny middle name, and a tan that would put both George Hamilton and Zonker Harris to shame.

    Clearly discovery is needed to force the original documents in Hawai’i to be produced and subjected to forensic examination with borscht, cole slaw, and vodka.

  11. avatar
    Northland10 July 3, 2012 at 7:37 am #

    Bran Mak Morn: As for him not having a birther case: I wouldn’t be surprised if someone tries to turn whatever he is placed over into a birther case.

    Though it would be incredibly unlikely for him to end up with any sort of a Birther case, just for kicks, let’s look at the California Birthers:

    1. Orly – she will go nowhere near his court. Maybe she will no longer drive in San Diego county out of fear she may get a ticket (a real possibility) and end up in his court.

    2. Ed Noonan, Gary Wilmott and Pam Barnett – These are the ones behind the current CA ballot challenge. The only problem with going to his court, he was involved in the ballot challenge. It would be hard to find any larger conflict that this.

  12. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn July 3, 2012 at 8:33 am #

    The point isn’t that they will knowingly send him a birther case, but that someone will get in his court and claim an Obama birther conspiracy behind the reason they are in court, as per Keith above.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 3, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    Kreep is not a one-trick pony. I sincerely doubt that the run for judge is related to presidential eligibility.

    bgansel9: So, am I to understand that this is step 1 in trying to get positioned to rule over a birther case?

  14. avatar
    raicha July 3, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    Kreep won the election, so what are his damages? His failure to understand that one must actually suffer damages in order to state a cause of action in a complaint is further proof that the Bar Association is right.

    Kreep is clearly unqualified.

    Further, his comments assure that members of that association will exercise the right to request a different judge in any case before him, based on Kreep’s bias toward the association.

  15. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 3, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    Kreep will distance himself from the birther movement, because he knows that embracing birtherism is career suicide.

  16. avatar
    bgansel9 July 3, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Kreep is not a one-trick pony. I sincerely doubt that the run for judge is related to presidential eligibility.

    I hope you’re right Doc, but, I’ve come to the conclusion that you should never put money on any prediction which involves a birther. They ALWAYS surprise.

  17. avatar
    y_p_w July 3, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Kreep is not a one-trick pony. I sincerely doubt that the run for judge is related to presidential eligibility.

    I don’t think anyone is questioning whether he will try to at least give the appearance that he’s taking this seriously. However, the question is whether he’ll be opportunistic or whether some birther will come to him with a special request knowing his birther background.

    Again, when most California District and Superior Courts merged, I couldn’t quite figure out what it was supposed to mean. So now traffic court judges were also Superior Court judges?

  18. avatar
    Predicto July 3, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    Again, when most California District and Superior Courts merged, I couldn’t quite figure out what it was supposed to mean. So now traffic court judges were also Superior Court judges?

    Yes, basically. All judges were converted into Superior Court judges. The point was to make the system more efficient and less duplicative. The judges are assigned to different departments by the Presiding Judge, some more important and some less important. I guarantee that Kreep will be assigned to a courtroom commensurate with his abilities, if not his ambitions.

  19. avatar
    G July 3, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    His real goal seems to be a theocracy…

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Kreep is not a one-trick pony. I sincerely doubt that the run for judge is related to presidential eligibility.

  20. avatar
    justlw July 3, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    Keith: Miramar AFB

    Miramar is currently a MCAS. (It was a NAS when I worked across I-805 from it).

    Gary Kreep bears a strong resemblance to an Ewok in a suit. Not that this has anything to do with anything, but if there are any shield generators that turn out to need destroying in San Diego County, he may finally serve a useful purpose.

  21. avatar
    Graham Shevlin July 3, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    What “Action” is Kreep going to take against the San Diego Bar Association? And does he realize that such bluster and bloviation is a confirmation of the Bar Association’s recent low marks for his original qualifications?

  22. avatar
    Joyce Clemons July 3, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

    You guys all crack me up with your scenarios. Suffice it to say that
    this man may or may not be qualified (but he got elected) (hmmm
    that rings a bell) and he may, or may not even be eligible
    (sound familiar?). Any Birther could, by now, tell you how hard it is
    to gain standing, demonstrate ripeness, argue justiciability.
    And that is in the case of someone who can save the nation or screw up your
    entire life as you know it. This is rich..you have liberals actually starting to
    think strategy like…like..Birthers! Ha ha. Don’t worry. His tenure will not be all that
    noteworthy. His claim to fame will be when nothing happens, really, but he
    retains his values and beliefs, whatever they may be, in spite of detraction.
    His detractors, some of them, will have a tiny, insignificant epiphany that they, being
    respectable decent progressives, are somehow getting a craving for Earl Grey with Lemon. A little slap of the face in the mirror will cure that…uh-huh. and if all else fails,
    They can make fun of his name and anachronistic value set. Or call him a bigot, or whatever. A little Tempest in a Teapot. Cheerio! Lord Monckton, Sir, please pass the crumpets. Now, Sir Christopher, tell me again that quaint story about the British subject that became the most powerful man in the world, and pissed off Her Majesty.

  23. avatar
    Majority Will July 3, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

    Joyce Clemons:
    You guys all crack me up with your scenarios. Suffice it to say that
    this man may or may not be qualified (but he got elected) (hmmm
    that rings a bell) and he may, or may not even be eligible
    (sound familiar?). Any Birther could, by now, tell you how hard it is
    to gain standing, demonstrate ripeness, argue justiciability.
    And that is in the case of someone who can save the nation or screw up your
    entire life as you know it. This is rich..you have liberals actually starting to
    think strategy like…like..Birthers! Ha ha. Don’t worry. His tenure will not be all that
    noteworthy. His claim to fame will be when nothing happens, really, but he
    retains his values and beliefs, whatever they may be, in spite of detraction.
    His detractors, some of them, will have a tiny, insignificant epiphany that they, being
    respectable decent progressives, are somehow getting a craving for Earl Grey with Lemon. A little slap of the face in the mirror will cure that…uh-huh. and if all else fails,
    They can make fun of his name and anachronistic value set. Or call him a bigot, or whatever. A little Tempest in a Teapot. Cheerio! Lord Monckton, Sir, please pass the crumpets. Now, Sir Christopher, tell me again that quaint story about the British subject that became the most powerful man in the world, and pissed off Her Majesty.

    Was there a point in there somewhere?

  24. avatar
    G July 3, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    Joyce, you are simply seeing what you WISH to see (because YOU think that way) and NOT what is actually taking place in these discussions.

    Yes, us folks are both shocked and disappointed that Kreep was able to win the vote…not just because he’s a propagandist birther and theocratic nutcase, but more importantly, because he was rated so POORLY in comparison to his competition.

    However, although we make a few idle jokes, NONE of us here are losing sleep at night in anger/fear of his election win. We are also mature enough to understand and accept that elections don’t always go the way you want them to…and that is just typical life in progress.

    So there is ZERO comparison between the sore loser delusions, denials and endless failure antics that you immature whiney Birthers pulled and are still pulling to this very day.

    The voters in that district elected Kreep, so Kreep is who they’ve got. It is now up to him to properly fulfill the duties of that elected office for his term, whatever they turn out to be. Simple as that. That’s how elections work.

    Joyce Clemons:
    You guys all crack me up with your scenarios. Suffice it to say that
    this man may or may not be qualified (but he got elected) (hmmm
    that rings a bell) and he may, or may not even be eligible
    (sound familiar?). Any Birther could, by now, tell you how hard it is
    to gain standing, demonstrate ripeness, argue justiciability.
    And that is in the case of someone who can save the nation or screw up your
    entire life as you know it. This is rich..you have liberals actually starting to
    think strategy like…like..Birthers! Ha ha. Don’t worry. His tenure will not be all that
    noteworthy. His claim to fame will be when nothing happens, really, but he
    retains his values and beliefs, whatever they may be, in spite of detraction.
    His detractors, some of them, will have a tiny, insignificant epiphany that they, being
    respectable decent progressives, are somehow getting a craving for Earl Grey with Lemon. A little slap of the face in the mirror will cure that…uh-huh. and if all else fails,
    They can make fun of his name and anachronistic value set. Or call him a bigot, or whatever. A little Tempest in a Teapot. Cheerio! Lord Monckton, Sir, please pass the crumpets. Now, Sir Christopher, tell me again that quaint story about the British subject that became the most powerful man in the world, and pissed off Her Majesty.

  25. avatar
    Joyce Clemons July 4, 2012 at 1:43 am #

    Touche, G. you are right. that is how elections work. Move On and Co., and many others, from various perspectives are working hard to make sure that elections work for us and don’t work us over. And yes, the tide is against the fair and impartial process. Part of my life’s work has been to thump on county boards of elections to make sure that people who use wheelchairs and voters with sensory and even cognitive disabilities can get into the polls, to the point of having heated arguments with the volunteers over whether a registered voter can be assisted by a neutral person. Although one commenter doubted I was making any point at all, you seemed to be moved to substantive response. I give you that. I ask you, is it all that horrific if some (even NUTS) test the waters of the ballot laws to see if they have any real meaning? Is vetting a bad thing, and if it is, why does the San Diego Bar do what THEY do? Have you tried to get a passport recently? Eligibility demonstrated by highly standardized documentation trumps qualifications in that venue. I can’t say I am heartened to know that in most states, it appears that you don’t even have to show a green card to run for office. Haven’t we learned something of value from all this? Don’t you suppose that King George thought our George was a tad fruity? (Some modern thinkers who read quotes from George and Co. might think they were a bit theocratic. Is that tendency okay because, as a collective, they turned out to be brilliant with foresight? Or..NO, NOT OKAY…because they were old school) Charlie Sheen is as bipolar as a bed-bug, but he still instructs America through the popular media on Anger Management. Is that so WRONG??? (just comic relief, G.) We have to face some facts. Our society has lost much of its capacity for civil discourse. We call people names and label them rather than learn from their different views about how to treat one another. Exploitation is the new THEOCRACY. And it is a religion of 300 million demi-gods. G., I am giving you the credit for your convictions, so please don’t patronize by telling me “what I want to see is what I see.” What I see makes my heart sick. I read ALL the blogs. Left, right, black and white. The commonality is hypocrisy, but taken as a whole, not by intent. Hypocrisy is a puddle that ever foot steps in, mine included. I have faith in the power of difference for creating positive change. Once in a while I burp and some words come out. Sorry I honored yours with a thought of redeem-ability, but I am only sorry if it is too hard for your faithful to take. One last thing. Blogs stay fresher when challenging views are brought forth. If your crew wants to throw veggies at me, make mine tomatoes. Stains like tie-dye and brings out the hippie in me.

  26. avatar
    Keith July 4, 2012 at 1:51 am #

    justlw: Miramar is currently a MCAS. (It was a NAS when I worked across I-805 from it).

    Yes, I meant NAS. Sorry. What’s an MCAS?

    I also meant I-805 instead of I-5 but its close enough.

  27. avatar
    Keith July 4, 2012 at 2:03 am #

    Joyce Clemons: Don’t you suppose that King George thought our George was a tad fruity?

    Uh, nope…

    George Washington, the Greatest Man

    When King George III heard Washington would resign his commission to a powerless Congress, he told the painter Benjamin West: “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

    By the way, Joyce – paragraphs are your friend.

  28. avatar
    Keith July 4, 2012 at 2:10 am #

    Joyce Clemons: I am heartened to know that in most states, it appears that you don’t even have to show a green card to run for office.

    What are you driving at here? What does a green card have to do with running for office. A green card means you are a resident alien and resident aliens are not eligible to run for office.

    When I registered to vote, I most certainly had to provide proof of citizenship. In Arizona, in 1972. And when I went to the poll, I had to demonstrate that I was registered to vote. Why should anyone have demonstrate citizenship at the polling station if they have already done so when they registered?

  29. avatar
    G July 4, 2012 at 2:37 am #

    I commend you for that good work you’ve been doing. Working to improve and help the world is a noble goal and you should not give up. There will always be setbacks and bad days. But there are good days too. It is easy to get impatient with the pace of progress and to focus on the negative aspects. But every small inch forward is progress. Never forget that.

    Joyce Clemons:
    Touche, G. you are right. that is how elections work. Move On and Co., and many others, from various perspectives are working hard to make sure that elections work for us and don’t work us over. And yes, the tide is against the fair and impartial process. Part of my life’s work has been to thump on county boards of elections to make sure that people who use wheelchairs and voters with sensory and even cognitive disabilities can get into the polls, to the point of having heated arguments with the volunteers over whether a registered voter can be assisted by a neutral person.

    We all get frustrated at times and need to vent. Just try to be aware that we are often at our worst representation of ourselves, when we write out of despair and anger. It becomes easy to judge and jump to conclusions, when all there is to go on is a misplaced rant. Reason and dialogue can always be regained, when both parties are able to demonstrate a sincere attempt at substantively reaching out.

    Joyce Clemons:
    Although one commenter doubted I was making any point at all, you seemed to be moved to substantive response. I give you that.

  30. avatar
    G July 4, 2012 at 2:38 am #

    You’ve just dropped in here and haven’t been following this debacle as long as many of us have. There is a reason why we have developed a much more “jaded” perspective on the matter, over all that time. Of course the world will always be full of some cranks. If you had been a regular reader here, you would realize that we support our laws and process, including people trying to work WITHIN the system to seek justice or improve it.

    However, that is NOT what is really going on with this Birther nonsense. People who sincerely have a grievance and seek redress would also LISTEN, once they’ve had their audience to the answers they are given, and maybe LEARN why things work a certain way, or why their “assumptions” of a situation were not correct. Some folks simply don’t understand the real complexities of a process or why it needs to be that way. That is fine, up until the point that they are given an answer explaining how and why things are a certain way.

    NO is a valid answer, regardless of the level of detail required to explain that NO. Some folks simply cannot accept a reality that doesn’t give them the magic ponies they dream up in their imagination. That is not being rational, that is being a spoiled sore loser and exhibiting willful denial. I have no sympathy for those who are too insecure to admit and accept when they are wrong about something.

    Others in this Birther “scheme” are much more disingenuous than that – they are merely playing an intentionally misleading game and abuse of the courts for strictly propaganda theater purposes. That is simply an ABUSE of our system and such flagrant frivolity deserves scorn and sanctioning.

    None of these silly Birther games is “new” here. The court challenges and the ballot challenges have been tried REPEATEDLY over these past 4 years – ALWAYS with the same results and answers. So this is not a matter of anyone innocently trying to get an answer via the system. Those answers have been given – repeatedly and consistently. There is no “gray area” here, except willful and intentional denial and wasting of resources by a bunch of bitter people who can’t accept the reality of the world in front of them. There is very little rationale to tolerate such immature and irrational behavior, endlessly. That time has long since past.

    Joyce Clemons:
    I ask you, is it all that horrific if some (even NUTS) test the waters of the ballot laws to see if they have any real meaning?

  31. avatar
    G July 4, 2012 at 2:45 am #

    Nobody said vetting was a bad thing. There is reasonable and rational “vetting” and there is irrational and biased vetting, in which a standard is ONLY applied to a certain individual or group of individuals and NOT treating all in the process in an equal manner. There are also rational limits to what vetting can do.

    Birtherism is both irrational and biased. It applies a standard to Obama that NO one else has EVER been subject to…and no other candidate, even today, is being subject to either. It also selectively ignores ALL official confirmations and evidence, as Birtherism starts off with a faulty premise of assuming “guilt”, and any other result is simply unacceptable to the Birther mind.

    Legal Bars all over the country have been vetting judicial candidates for quite some time now. Their rankings and evaluations are a fairly standard thing. There is NO evidence that the San Diego Bar did anything unusual or improper in its evaluation of the candidates for that position. You have just introduced a false equivalency here in trying to argue these two totally different situations. Apples and oranges.

    Joyce Clemons:
    Is vetting a bad thing, and if it is, why does the San Diego Bar do what THEY do?

    Yes. My wife and I got passports for the first time, just a few years back. We live in Northeast Ohio. Now that the rules have changed, so that a passport is required in order to visit Canada, we simply got passports to comply with those new rules. We did not have any difficulty in complying with the requirements and following the process in order to get our passports, so I’m not sure what your gripe is here.

    You *do* realize that Obama *HAS HAD* a US passport for most of his life, don’t you? Also, for most of his life, he was just a regular person, just like all the rest of us. So when he did ALL the rest of the things that everyone else does – get a car, get married, go to school, play sports, travel, etc., etc., he went through the SAME procedures and had to provide the SAME documentation proof that everyone else did…. Use some common sense and think about that for a second…

    If you wish to see Obama’s current passport as President, then that information has been leaked and can easily be found on the internet, via a quick search.

    Joyce Clemons:

    Have you tried to get a passport recently? Eligibility demonstrated by highly standardized documentation trumps qualifications in that venue.

  32. avatar
    G July 4, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    Well, that is a weird and generalized blanket statement for you to just throw out there, without any specifics to correlate it to. Therefore, as it stands, it is a fairly meaningless, unconfirmable and non-addressable complaint.

    So, unless you have a specific example (including state and office) to examine, you are just throwing out a claim that cannot even be investigated, in order to see whether what you say is even true, or even if it is, why that is the case or what could be done about it. It remains meaningless and pointless, except for the sake of someone pulling a whine out of their behind.

    There are so many “flaws” to such a generalized “requirement” (depending on how it was worded), that it is a waste of time going further down this particular road, unless you can come back with a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. For instance, any explicit requirement for producing a “green card” in order to run for office is ludicrous on its face, as citizens DON’T have “green cards”…

    Joyce Clemons:
    I can’t say I am heartened to know that in most states, it appears that you don’t even have to show a green card to run for office. Haven’t we learned something of value from all this?

    I have no idea where you are going with this part… you call it comic relief, but I don’t see any actual point of relevance contained herein…so I’ll just move on…

    Joyce Clemons:
    Don’t you suppose that King George thought our George was a tad fruity? (Some modern thinkers who read quotes from George and Co. might think they were a bit theocratic. Is that tendency okay because, as a collective, they turned out to be brilliant with foresight? Or..NO, NOT OKAY…because they were old school) Charlie Sheen is as bipolar as a bed-bug, but he still instructs America through the popular media on Anger Management. Is that so WRONG??? (just comic relief, G.)

  33. avatar
    G July 4, 2012 at 3:26 am #

    I agree with you on these points.

    Joyce Clemons:
    We have to face some facts. Our society has lost much of its capacity for civil discourse. We call people names and label them rather than learn from their different views about how to treat one another.

    I would argue that exploitation has ALWAYS been around and there is nothing new about it at all. In terms of theocracy, I would also argue that exploitation (and control) has always been a major goal in such a political/social structure.

    Joyce Clemons:
    Exploitation is the new THEOCRACY.

    Not sure what your explicit point is here in trying to make a rough rounded reference to the US population…. Yes, we are all Americans and have ONE country…but at the same time it is also always going to be true that each person is unique and has their own combination of values, viewpoints and opinions…to say the least.

    I don’t see where any of that makes anyone “demi-gods” in any way… except for pointing out that there is a segment of any population in which some people’s egos and sense of personal entitlement are out of control… but really, there’s nothing unusual nor atypical about that either. Not now; not historically. So your entire statement comes across to me as simply hyperbolic; yet without purpose.

    Joyce Clemons:
    And it is a religion of 300 million demi-gods.

    Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the world and none of us are perfect. I, you and everyone else is capable of leaping to conclusions that don’t hold up (or at least need to be modified/adapted), after additional information is obtained. Part of human nature.

    I too am extremely disgusted by hypocrisy. It truly makes my heart sick too. So I “get it” that you are feeling frustrated. It remains true that we are all limited by the breadth of our own experiences and perspectives. That doesn’t mean that we can’t grow by learning from other’s perspectives. At the same time, that also means that we all have to be careful to not be limited by our own perspective and reflexively lash out, simply because someone points out that their focus is different than what yours is. So no, I wasn’t intending to patronize you.

    However, I do openly admit to leaping to conclusions and casting a negative judgment of you, based on what you had written prior. Then again, you gave me very little to go on at that time and what you wrote easily comes across as nothing but reactionary…and quite frankly, stands out as such, as it came from nowhere and immediately dived beyond the scope of the blog post topics it was related to. So, please take some time and reflect and realize that you just came here out of the blue and started ranting. Take yourself out of your own shoes for a moment and think about how that would look to a bunch of strangers, who don’t know you. Imagine if you were in the midst of a discussion and someone you don’t know, burst in out of nowhere and just started griping…without an idea of where they are coming from. THAT does not leave a good first impression…nor is it a good way for someone to introduce themselves into an existing conversation… How people will respond or relate to you is based on how you come across to them…that simply is basic human social dynamics at work. So, understand that angry/upset emotions can often interfere with us putting our best face forward in making an argument or conveying an impression of ourselves… and you simply could have done a better job of introducing yourself into this ongoing conversation.

    Joyce Clemons:

    G., I am giving you the credit for your convictions, so please don’t patronize by telling me “what I want to see is what I see.” What I see makes my heart sick. I read ALL the blogs. Left, right, black and white. The commonality is hypocrisy, but taken as a whole, not by intent. Hypocrisy is a puddle that ever foot steps in, mine included. I have faith in the power of difference for creating positive change. Once in a while I burp and some words come out. Sorry I honored yours with a thought of redeem-ability, but I am only sorry if it is too hard for your faithful to take. One last thing. Blogs stay fresher when challenging views are brought forth. If your crew wants to throw veggies at me, make mine tomatoes. Stains like tie-dye and brings out the hippie in me.

  34. avatar
    G July 4, 2012 at 3:31 am #

    Agreed. Same here.

    Keith: When I registered to vote, I most certainly had to provide proof of citizenship. In Arizona, in 1972. And when I went to the poll, I had to demonstrate that I was registered to vote. Why should anyone have demonstrate citizenship at the polling station if they have already done so when they registered?

  35. avatar
    Majority Will July 4, 2012 at 9:07 am #

    “I did not start impeach Kreep campaign. I filed a bar complaint against Kreep, showing that his actions represent a flagrant violation of the code of ethics, which should not allow him to practice law, never mind be a judge.”

    dr_taitz@ yahoo.com
    July 3rd, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

    (comment on orlytaitzesq.com)

    I want to know why birthers love to destroy irony meters.

  36. avatar
    Northland10 July 4, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    Majority Will:
    “I did not start impeach Kreep campaign. I filed a bar complaint against Kreep, showing that his actions represent a flagrant violation of the code of ethics, which should not allow him to practice law, never mind be a judge.”

    dr_taitz@ yahoo.com
    July 3rd, 2012 @ 1:36 pm
    (comment on orlytaitzesq.com)

    For Orly, saying no or defending yourself against her in court is a flagrant violation of the code of ethics. You see, to disagree with the Orly is unconstitutional and is an act of treason, so says she.

  37. avatar
    Lupin July 4, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    Marvel used to have a comic called “Super-Villains Team-Up” in which Dr Doom would fight the Red Skull or Modok. That’s how I feel about Tits and Creep.

  38. avatar
    Scientist July 4, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    G: Legal Bars all over the country have been vetting judicial candidates for quite some time now. Their rankings and evaluations are a fairly standard thing. There is NO evidence that the San Diego Bar did anything unusual or improper in its evaluation of the candidates for that position. You have just introduced a false equivalency here in trying to argue these two totally different situations. Apples and oranges.

    Besides, they vetted Kreep based on his public actions-the cases he has argued and the statements he has made. Had the Bar gone to court to force release of Kreep’s confidential files, they would have been totally out of line.

    As far as Obama, of course many organizations “vetted” him in 2008 based on his votes, speeches, positiions, etc. and either endorsed him or endorsed his opponents. The same is happening this year, based on his record in office. The difference between that and the birthers is greater than apples and oranges, which are both fruits. More like apples and sofas or oranges and airplanes.

  39. avatar
    JPotter July 4, 2012 at 9:42 am #

    Lupin:
    Marvel used to have a comic called “Super-Villains Team-Up” in which Dr Doom would fight the Red Skull or Modok. That’s how I feel about Tits and Creep.

    That’s the trouble with paranoia. Everybody looks like One of Them, even the other paranoid people! So funny when trolls attack each other through territorialism (Hey, this is my thread, my attention, bugger off!), or even better, fight over the details of the crazy. C’mon, crazy people, can’t we just agree to be crazy together, to defend each other’s right to be crazy in our own special way?

    Nope.

  40. avatar
    Lupin July 4, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    Marvel also used to have a comic called “Giant-Size Man-Thing.”

    Maybe Orly might be interested?