A Judiciary Run Amok
Trying desperately to get home in time to celebrate my son’s 25th birthday on Saturday, I drove from Glendale, KY to Atlanta, GA today. As I’ll need to get an early start tomorrow, I thought I would briefly scan the news before retiring for the night. Then I saw this latest affront to decency. It seems the judiciary’s penchant for tormenting American citizens continues unabated, as a federal appeals court struck down Hazelton, PA laws that attempted to do something about its illegal alien problem.
Borrowing a page from the black-robed wonder in Arizona, the Olympian council otherwise known as the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Hazelton’s law on grounds that it usurps the federal government’s “exclusive power” in the regulation of immigration. Here is the rationale provided from the court:
It is ... not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress.
The heart of the matter here, glaringly large enough that even Ray Charles could have seen it, is not the federal policy on immigration, but rather the government’s refusal to enforce that policy. Local laws that enforce federal statutes do not “undermine federal objectives,” with regard to immigration any more than local laws against murder and kidnapping undermine federal statures in those areas.
As we lick our chops at the fast approaching November day when we send an unmistakable signal to two branches of the federal government, the question remains what to do about the third?
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: A Judiciary Run Amok
Well, Article III of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
But Congress has only once, in my lifetime, made such an exception.
Congress' failure to use this clearly-enunciated authority is, of course, a reflection of the fact that the courts have become so politicized that one party or another will fight like the dickens to defend errant judicial judgments which are congenial to their views.
So the answer is: we need a Republican majority so overwhelming and so robust in its defense of Constitutional principles that Congress will step up and slap the courts down in these sorts of egregious circumstances.
Good luck with that.
Sep '10
Re: A Judiciary Run Amok
The Federal Government insists that it alone has the right to enforce the immigration laws. Fine. Then enforce the laws. Do your duty! Stop playing dog-in-the-manger. Lead or get out of the way.
My feeling is this: If the Federal Government willfully & consistently ignores one of its specific responsibilities, than the States have the right to assume that responsibility. I think the idea is true to the spirit of the Tenth Amendment, and I think a smart Constitutional lawyer could make a really good case for it. If we ever needed on opinion from the Founding Fathers, we need it now.
Look at it this way: The Federal Government is trying to provoke a civil war with Arizona because Arizona wants to protect the national border (which the Feds refuse to do). That is sheer lunatic madness – precisely the sort of idiotic, arrogant nonsense that provokes revolutions.
Edited on Sep 9, 2010 at 9:05pmJul '10
Re: A Judiciary Run Amok
This is particularly 'galling' here where I live in Phoenix and across Arizona as most everyone now knows. The amount of violence done to Mexicans by Mexican illegals, coyotes and drug runners should have the UN screaming but instead our government is attacking us for trying to take care of the problem. It is more than amazing that the courts have allowed eight other countries to join in the lawsuit against Arizona. Mexico, Bolivia, Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru... and the United States DOJ. The part that is most confusing for any of us trying to make sense of this is the basic meaning of 'illegal'? As long as the government and the courts use the law as a weapon upon their own people we will be rife with strife. The chains are feeling heavier everyday.
Jul '10
Re: A Judiciary Run Amok
That is a great question what can we do about the judicial branch. The judiciary is being hollowed out and made a joke by the left because they feel more responsibility to their ideology than the institution. The same thing happens in the public schools, the universities and the media. The left is willing to let all these institutions crumble as long as they can continue to advance and advocate their agenda. I mean who cares about rule of law or the credibility of the media as long we advance progressivism.
One thing I think we can cross off our list is waiting for the new republican majority to spring into action. We need a movement like the tea party to address it. But first we need a snappy catch-phrase for bumper stickers and t-shirts. I suggest.
recall em' all....
clear the bench....
Impeach all judges
Jun '10
Re: A Judiciary Run Amok
A federal court in Riverside, California, ruled Thursday that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly -- is unconstitutional. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/dont.ask.dont.tell/)
Regardless of what you think of DA-DT as a policy, can we allow every federal judge with his/her own personally annotated version of the Constitution to remove this kind of decision from the political branches?
Edited on Sep 10, 2010 at 4:46amMay '10
Re: A Judiciary Run Amok
Fat chance impeaching judges when 1) there is no way to get a Senate majority without accepting the reality of RINOs in blue states, and 2) some elements of the Republican party sincerely believe that purity in the Permanent Minority is more important than compromise.
In other words, sometimes achievable better is better than unachievable best.
Good luck, Mr. Castle.
May '10
Re: A Judiciary Run Amok
BTW, I'd like to see Profs. Yoo and Epstein weigh in and explain why the federal failure to enforce couldn't prompt a suit for a writ of (continuing) mandamus over the immigration law.
Presumably that is buried some place in the Arizona response to Holder's injunction action, but I haven't seen anything myself, and it seems so obvious that I am likely on non-existent constitutional grounds by even asking the question. But there are clearly people who have standing to bring a suit, maybe some precedent I missed prevents this.
Re: A Judiciary Run Amok
I agree, Dave. I don't disagree with the doctrine of federal supremacy -- there are areas where the Founders intended the federal government to have supreme authority. But I think the principle is being abused here, and in Arizona, to target laws that are perfectly consistent with federal law. The Supreme Court has previously upheld state laws that penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. That's an example of state enforcement that is consistent with federal law. The same principle should apply here.
Jul '10
Re: A Judiciary Run Amok
Dave: Agreed. Has there ever been a Special Called Vote/Recall on a President? How many signatures would it take?