Court Upholds California Governor's Use Of Emergency Powers

Well, this is unsettling, but not unexpected. It appears that a 3-judge panel of California's finest appellate judges sided with Gov. Gavin Newsom and overturned a lower courts ruling that said that he exceeded his emergency powers.

I live in California again, and after watching this lawsuit from the beginning, reading pertinent parts of the California state constitution and the Emergency Services Act (ESA), and listening to arguments from both sides, I don't see, at all, how these judges could side with what he did. This lawsuit surrounds how Newsom rewrote election laws in California during last year's general election under the guise of the authority given him by the ESA.

I made a comment on another thread about how it's possible that history's 20/20 hindsight will find correlation between the timing of COVID, the types of governmental actions taken in response to it, and the reality that many in the proverbial Powers That Be wanted Trump's presidency destroyed and chances of reelection all but impossible. The types of things that Newsom and other "progressive" governors surrounding last year's elections will eventually come out as coordinated and purposeful for an end goal (which was not the claimed safety of the public).

Two California assemblymen filed the original suit and vow to take it up to the California Supreme Court in response to this ruling. Here is a snippet from the story:

Assemblymen Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin and James Gallagher, R-Yuba City filed the suit last year, claiming Newsom had unconstitutionally used executive action under the California Emergency Services Act when he changed how the state would conduct elections that year. The lawmakers, who represented themselves in court, claimed Newsom was not allowed to create legislation, even in times of emergency.

Sutter County Superior Court Judge Sarah Heckman sided with the lawmakers last fall, prohibiting the governor from exercising any powers under the Emergency Services Act which “amend, alter, or change existing statutory law or make new statutory law or legislative policy.”

But the higher court on Wednesday ruled that Heckman’s injunction raises “matters of great public concern regarding the Governor’s orders in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic emergency.”

As you see in the portion I put in bold, it seems that this three-judge appellate court is more concerned about how it neuters Newsom's ability to continue his edicts than if it really goes against his legal authority.

“This statutory purpose, while broad, gives the governor sufficient guidance, i.e., to issue orders that further a coordinated emergency response,” the justices wrote.

In a joint statement, Kiley and Gallagher described the court’s conclusion regarding emergency powers as “startling,” and criticized justices for relying upon a federal case from outside California.

It is startling that an appellate court would err on the side of giving a governor more power than specified, for sure, but out here in California, I expect nothing less. At least we have a recall this fall to look forward to, although I don't expect huge changes to come from that, although I'm hopeful.

Thoughts? Do you think that courts are in a trend that gives authoritarians more power while the people watch their liberties trickle away, or is this just a regional thing?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I live in California again

Why in the hell did you go and do that?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

With regard to your 20/20 hindsight comment, I still wonder if the "insurance" that people were discussing from the Weiner laptop fiasco was actually covid.
Also- what did Assange possibly know about this that's keeping him buried?

As for Newsom. He's not the only one who's absolutely abused the extra powers that covid has dropped in the laps of various authoritarian scumbags from all sides and several countries.

Almost like it was some kind of plan all along.

But that's just me.

a reply to: KKLOCO

For my wife's health and to be closer to family. The parents aren't getting any younger, and my wife needs a predictable climate with few extreme weather swings for her fibromyalgia.

Otherwise, I would not be here.

originally posted by: Tulpa
But that's just me.

No. It's not just you.

a reply to: Tulpa

Well seeing how things are "discussed at the Bilderberger annual talkfest" that us mere mortals are not privy to I would say you are spot on the money! Assange not needed

a reply to: Tulpa

On 2nd thoughts look likes she's winning, Weiner laptop too far back for most peoples memories to have any political fallout out.

www.theguardian.com...

Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking trial postponed until autumn at her request
Judge agrees to delay amid new charges and planning difficulties related to coronavirus

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Vegas isn't too shabby and while being democrat controlled the gaming industry runs that town with the mafia in the shadows. Its pretty beautiful year round aside from 3 to 4 months of 100+ degree heat

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You understand the decision much better when you realize that most of the higher-level judges in this country are Corrupt, or Blackmailed, or accept Bribes...or any combination thereof.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You understand the decision much better when you realize that most of the higher-level judges in this country are Corrupt, or Blackmailed, or accept Bribes...or any combination thereof.

I have no lack of understanding behind the "why" of this verdict. This state is pathetically corrupt, and that's why many of us who signed the recall petition want Newsom out. If you haven't seen this, it's a good read about corrupt politics in California: All in the (extended) family: the Gov. Newsom story

Did you mean the state government is corrupt or the population as a whole? a reply to: SlapMonkey

The State Superior Courts are allowed to reject or accept governor's invoking Emergency Powers acts.
The US Federal Supreme Court would be the court to question the constitutionality of such a finding by the lower courts.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Police in Ontario, Canada are challenging the governments COVID rules now, as they violate the constitution and the charter of rights and freedoms. I wonder if the courts will behave the same here as in California and determine that these are "reasonable limitations" on rights and freedoms. I suspect the courts will side with the government. I hope I'm wrong though!

ATS Thread - Cdn Police Challenge Govt

Why would CA need to orchestrate an offensive to ensure that Donald Trump did not win the states election? Trump was never going to win in CA. Such a move would have been a wast of time for the one party rullling class in CA.

originally posted by: calman787
Did you mean the state government is corrupt or the population as a whole? a reply to: SlapMonkey

The politicians in general are what is corrupt--the majority of the electorate are just apathetic or stupid.

originally posted by: dandandat2
Why would CA need to orchestrate an offensive to ensure that Donald Trump did not win the states election? Trump was never going to win in CA. Such a move would have been a wast of time for the one party rullling class in CA.

Because everything is always a test to see what the party in power can get away with.

Remember, though, it didn't just affect the presidential election, but also local elections as well.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

where is california at another world ?

a reply to: anna1234578

The bowels of hell.

Seriously, it's 105 degrees where I live as I'm typing this.