Judicial Activism Strikes Part Of Arizona Law
Jul 28, 2010 Political
Parts of the Arizona law that only enforced federal immigration laws were struck down by an activist judge who fails to understand that state laws which are identical to or do not change federal law, are perfectly legal. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, obviously bowing to behind the scenes pressure from the Obama regime, ruled that police officers cannot be required to check immigration status. What she has basically said is that police officers are not allowed to do their jobs.
Suppose these police officers told the federal government that they would no longer go after bank robbers because bank robbery is a federal crime and it might impact the federal laws. Would that make sense?
What Judge Bolton said today is that the rule of law does not matter and that states do not have control over their own territory. She basically told people it is OK to break federal law and then cause havoc in states and she told the states they have no right to protect themselves against federal impotence.
Governor Brewer plans to appeal the ruling but she should just put the law into place anyway and say screw the ruling. Isn’t this what Obama did with the drilling moratorium in the Gulf? He decided that he would ignore the court. Brewer should just tell her officers that they are not REQUIRED to ask immigration status but are free to do so if they wish. Then it would be a different issue and they can press on.
Immigration groups were jumping with joy at the ruling because now illegals will not be held accountable for the lawbreaking they are doing. They have been given free reign by a judge who made a moronic decision.
At least there is a sheriff in Arizona who intends to continue arresting illegals and putting them in tents.
Judge Bolton failed to rule on the merits of the law and legislated from the bench. She did not look at the merits of the law or she would have seen that it mirrors federal law. Perhaps she is unaware that states are sovereign places and have rights.
This is what happens when people who live in gated communities apart from the real world are placed in positions that require life experiences. This is also what happens when judges are worried about being removed from the bench by the White House.
Eric Holder and the Obama regime can all take a long walk off a short pier and keep walking until their hats float. And the good people of Arizona can take matters into their own hands.
Clean up your state by getting rid of the illegal trash and tell the White House to go screw itself. You folks in Arizona should start asking for papers on your own before you do business with anyone. If they do not have them then no jobs, no apartments, no sales, no cars, no nothing. Ask for proof before issuing a driver’s license.
If anyone says you can’t do that because it is against the law just tell them laws don’t apply in this case because it deals with immigration. Bolton and the feds have shown us that they have no regard for the law and that there is no need to actually follow the law.
I guess Arizona can take solace in the fact that at least these illegals did not come from Kenya…
Source:
al-Reuters
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bolton, holder, illegals, Immigration, judicial activism, kenya, Mexico, Obama
Gun Rights Drive Liberals Crazy
Jul 5, 2008 Second Amendment
Attention is drawn to more moonbattery with regard to the Second Amendment thanks to my friends at Red Maryland. Seems that a person named Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of University of California Irvine school of law (and supposed Constitutional scholar) is very upset with the decision of the Supreme Court that affirms our Individual right to keep and bear arms:
The Supreme Court’s invalidation of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion, joined by the court’s four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.
If the terms “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint” have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.
Never before had the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns. In fact, in 1939 (and other occasions), the court rejected this view. In effectively overturning these prior decisions, the court both ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government. Baltimore Sun
According to this so called scholar, upholding the Constitution is judicial activism. Despite Chemerinsky’s claims that the Court changed previous judicial rulings, that is not what happened. Since the Court has NEVER ruled on whether the Second Amendment is an individual right there is no way the Court changed history. However, even if it did what would be the problem? The Court is obligated to overturn any ruling that was in error. If a previous Court ruled on something and it turned out to be incorrect then the Court is obligated to fix it. If the Court were bound to uphold all previous decisions then we might still have slaves and the Dred Scott decision might not have invalidated by the Thirteenth Amendment. Interestingly, the Dred Scott decision provides us with the Court’s views on the Second Amendment even though the issue was not about gun rights.
In its opinion on the matter, the court stated that freeing a negro would cause several problems:
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised[sic] as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. Cornell Law
Chemerinsky, in his liberal fantasy of a world, would have people believe that the Court has gone against previous rulings (despite the fact that it has never ruled on the matter) and would ignore the fact that the Court, in a statement during a ruling on a different matter, affirmed the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. The supporting statements in Court decisions hold weight. In the Scott case the Court affirmed the individual right even though that is not what they were asked to rule on.
Chemerinsky describes the 1939 US v. Miller decision (and others) as rulings ignored by the Court. What are those other cases? If this guy is the dean of a school of law then one would expect him to be able to come up with the names of the cases. Instead, he uses a reference to unnamed cases to give the reader the impression that many cases exist. In reality, very few cases involving the Second Amendment exist and Miller in 1939 discussed the type of weapon, not who was allowed to posses it.
It is also interesting to note that Chemerinsky states; “the court both ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government.” First of all, if the law was unconstitutional then it does not matter what precedent there was (none) and it does not matter that it was instituted by a popularly elected government. The Bush Administration is a popularly elected government but that has not stopped the left from filing suits and from the VERY SAME Supreme Court from ruling against the President. I guess to a liberal there is one standard for laws they like and one for laws they do not.
I also think it is interesting that when the popularly elected government of California enacted, through the vote of the people, a definition of marriage that was not good enough for a lower court. The court, in that case, ruled the law and legal definition of marriage unconstitutional and allowed gay marriage. How many people from Chemerinsky’s side hailed that ruling as a wonderful day in jurisprudence.
The fact is, regardless of what anti gun nuts say, the Supreme Court affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms, the same thing the people who wrote the Amendment stated about it when they described what it meant. It is also a fact that more lawsuits will be filed in order to completely define exactly what that Amendment means and, when is all said and done, the left will be even more upset because we will finally have our rights appropriately defined and have protection against those who will usurp those rights.
Of course, the 5-4 decision should give all conservatives chills down their spines. There were four justices that were unable to see the meaning of the Amendment correctly despite the numerous writings describing it, written by the very people who authored the Amendment. We need to elect a president who will appoint justices who are able to interpret the Constitution the way it was written, using the words of the people who wrote it.
Now, if we could only get deans of law schools who understand the law…
Tags: constitution, gun laws, judicial activism, Second Amendment
Why California Gay Marriage Ruling is Bad
May 16, 2008 Opinion
A California Court overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage and it is a very bad thing for our society. I will not get into the debate on gay marriage. People who read this blog know that I am opposed to it. Part of my opposition is based upon my religious beliefs and part on the idea that government can overturn centuries of tradition and run counter to most religions. I have never understood why government is involved in the marriage business because it is a religious union and having government regulate it seems to run counter to keeping government out of religion. Despite my feelings, the ruling is bad for a much more sinister reason.
The court overturned the will of the people. Californians voted not to allow gay marriage. The people of the state voted on a referendum and the people determined they did not want to allow gay marriage and yet, a court has overturned this. The courts are in place to rule on matters of law. By overturning a law voted on by the people, the court overstepped its bounds and went counter to the people’s will.
There are procedures in place. The initiative was in place and people voted and in the end the gay marriage advocates lost. Instead of accepting the will of the people they turned to the courts thus leading to a court making law instead of interpreting it. Californians voted to make marriage a union between one man and one woman. The court decided it knew better than the people and, in effect, ignored centuries of precedent and tradition in order to give marriage a new meaning.
Our society has been on a downward spiral for about 100 years and the federal government is helping it along by following in the footsteps of other great civilizations that fell by the wayside. Gay marriage is one more item of decadence that helps keep the spiral turning.
But more insidious is the breakdown of our system of government where the judicial branch assumes legislative responsibility and, worse yet, thwarts the will of the people. The court was dominated by Republicans who demonstrated that our once great party is in its final stages of life. When the end finally arrives the country will be dominated by liberals in both parties and this can only mean the end will come even sooner.
Related item:
Breitbart
Tags: california, gay marriage, judicial activism, law