Brett Kavanaugh on the Confirmation Circus

President Trump on the Overreach of the Federal Courts

Ninth Circuit District Judge William Alsup issued an injunction from his San Francisco courtroom to block the Trump Administration's decision to let the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Executive Order lapse.  This occurred at the same time that President Trump indicated that he would sign any legislation over DACA that Congress passes.  The Trump Administration has waited six months before seeking to impose the policy in order for the legislative branch to do their job.




This ruling strains credulity.  Firstly, DACA may well not be constitutional. In 2011, President Barack Obama insisted that he did not have the authority to impose the DREAM Act without the legislature passing it.  Yet in 2012, Mr. Obama offered an Executive Order which halted deportations of this class of illegal immigrants while also granting the ability to apply for "temporary" work permits. So  a Chief Executive issues an edit not to apply the immigration and employment laws without receiving legislative approbation but it must be upheld because a District Court Judge's judgement on its constitutionality. 

But before the Trump Administration allowed DACA to lapse or for Congress to rectify the situation by actually passing a DACA bill, the Ninth Circuit (a.k.a. the 9th Circus) supposedly overrides the Trump Administration's Executive decisions. This is because  Judge Alsup's  believes that Mr. Trump's rational for exerting Executive will to end DACA was flawed because DACA was constitutional

This follows a trend in Federal Circuit Courts to countermand the Trump travel ban, as well as prohibiting transsexuals in the military. Obviously, Democrats are pursuing progressive politics through sympathetic courts. But these cases infringe on the constitutional authority of the Executive Branch while simultaneously assuming the proper role of the Legislative Branch.  The Supreme Court dismissed several claims against the travel ban and allowed the third iteration of the immigration order to go into effect. It is interesting that the Commander in Chief is supposed to have no authority over the troops which he commands, per these activist courts. 

Perhaps there needs to be a progressive re-education about our constitutional system and the division of power.

But that presupposes that they care about the rule of law rather than just favorable results for their cause-du-jour.

European Parliament President Poo-Poos Catalan Declaration of Independence

Disparaging the Deep State

Rand Paul on FBI's Non-Prosecution of Clinton Email Case

Ted Cruz on Clinton Email Non Prosecution

Scrutinizing Sonia Sotomayor on Judicial Activism

  

 When speaking before the Forum Club in Palm Beach and the Palm Beach County (Florida) Bar Association,  Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor dismissed concerns about judicial activism by denying that it exists.  She later elaborated: "What you will find out is that both sides always base it on a legal analysis. We don't come to our conclusions willy-nilly or arbitrarily. There won't be any decision you read where you will think that a judge is an activist." But Sotomayor's pithy quip raises questions about her judicial philosophy. 

 While the "Wise Latina" has occasionally uttered allegiance the rule of law and that the role of a judge is not to make the law but to apply it, Sotomayor sometimes seems content to include herself in the process. Sotomayor earned the moniker during her Senate confirmation hearings when she refused to renounce her inspiring words about being a "Wise Latina" judge who would make better decisions. Sotomayor tried to walk back the exclusivity of the exclamation, but that is hard when you say: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a while male who hasn't lived that life." 

 As Justice Sotomayor was publicizing her autobiographical book Mi mundo adorado / My Beloved World (2013), she revealed to the New York Times that:

“It is my great hope that I’ll be a great justice, and that I’ll write opinions that will last the ages. But that doesn’t always happen. More importantly, it’s only one measure of meaning in life. To me, the more important one is my values and my impact on people who feel inspired in any way by me....Serving as a role model is the most valuable thing I can do.”

But does a consciousness on being a role model make for a sort of judicial activism which inserts the self into a rendering of justice?

Justice Sotomayor has been candid about how her unconventional background permeates her position.  As she has said: "Since I have difficulty defining merit and what merit alone means - and in any context, whether it's judicial or otherwise - I accept that different experiences in and of itself, bring merit to the system."  Moreover,  Sotomayor has mused that: "Personal experiences affect the facts which judges choose to see."  And Tea Party types hold that silly thought that justice is blind.

 Justice Sotomayor has even reached out to the crumb chasers  with her appearance  on Sesame Street in which the dialogue sounded as leaden as the cafecita.

 

 While the baby talk explanation of what her job is works for the kinder care sect, one wonders if it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Justice Sotomayor's role on the Supreme Court.   Sotomayor describes her duties as being a judge who solves arguments by giving his or her opinion. Really?  As the nation's highest court, SCOTUS determines the law not solving arguments.  Is this done through giving one's opinion or through judicial interpretation (her opinion on the law)?

No wonder Justice Sotomayor does not believe in judicial activism as it seems like the root of her judicial philosophy with a veneer of the rule of law and the spiff of class conscious inspiration.

NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio on IDs for Illegals

  While it is no surprise that a progressive politician such as Bill De Blasio wants to welcome those who are socially disadvantaged, like people who broke immigration laws.   Some states like California, are trying to get everyone operating on the roads with a drivers license for safety concerns. Unfortunately, making the privilege of driving available to indocumentados does not mean that they will qualify.  About half of the illegal immigrants taking the California DMV test failed, often more than once. 

 But such bleeding hearts usually just  refer to the group  as "undocumented Americans".   De Blasio apologized if these people felt like "second class" citizens.  Really?  This is insulting to those who follow the rule of law like citizens, taxpayers and especially those honorable immigrants who played by the rules and endured the long and costly process to become a legal citizen of the United States. 

The IDs which the undocumented New Yorkers will not only allow them to use banks and fly on airplanes.  It also entitles them to use the 33 city agencies.  How do such residents treat the civic largess?  The track record for this class of immigrants is not promising.  




If  they do not necessarily have Social Security numbers, they will either use false IDs or work under the table.  Perhaps President Obama's extra-legal Executive Action moots that issue before the judicial branch which makes it a political issue not to be overturned with a chary Congressional leadership.

President Obama allowed a large influx of Central American immigrants to migrate to America and be disbursed on their own recognizance throughout the United States so long as they showed up for their scheduled INS hearing. The government now reports that 96% of these people were "in abstentia" (i.e. no shows). 

Many suspect that some politicians encourage immigration of "undocumented Americans" as a way to increase voter turnout.  In Maryland, it is estimated that 7% of the electorate may be comprised of illegal immigrants.  This was determined cross checking voter rolls to  jury summons which were appealed because they were not US Citizens.

As this nation tries to grapple with the thorny subject of illegal immigration, we ought to stop ignoring the rule of law by minimizing the duties along with the rights of citizens.

Mike Lee on Immigration

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) railed against the Department of Homeland Security's rumored relaxation of deportations of illegal immigrants. At the same time, the Tea Party inspired Senator noted that conservatives are willing to address immigration but in a step-by-step rather than a collossal comprehensive immigration bill, which would be a monstrosity ala Obamacare.