"Judge was not overstepping authority. The CA constitution has a part that specifically talks about equal rights. In CA, there are two types of modifications you can make to the constitution. The first is for trivial things (eg: pay raises for legislatures), which is designed to get around the stalemate of partisan politics. The other type of change materially affects the rights of a group (ie: minority). It's a higher bar which is designed to protect minorities from oppression by majority."
I'm doubtful of your familiarity with the details of this case.
"Entrapment happens when an officer of the law induces someone to commit a crime that they had no intention of committing, so as to be able to trap them and arrest them. That hasn't happened in any of the cases I've read about."
Funny, I seem to recall the cases are generally of an Islamist who is enticed into looking for ways to commit terrorist acts, not already actively looking.
Even if you parse that very finely, I'm pretty sure none of the convicted were intending to commit a specific criminal act before the FBI stepped in and planned and facilitated a specific criminal act.
"I hate the USA and I want people to die", even if said out loud, does not rise to the level of intent to commit a crime, to the best of my knowledge.
They do not universally know what they are doing. Some of them do, some of them are fascists, and some of them are lazy glory hounds.
They are absolutely trying to entrap. They entice, solicit, plan, and equip the attempts. The guilty to a man are clueless, incompetent losers who were not engaged in terrorism or with "terrorists" until targeted by the FBI (from what I have read: welcome to correction if wrong).
IANA Civil Rights L. I personally think the judges who rule that none of these cases are entrapment are getting it wrong. Judges are not infallible.