Our judicial branch of government is irrevocably broken, even more so than the other two branches.
To begin with, the entire premise of the judiciary being the final arbiter over constitutional questions is wrong. They have usurped power beyond the imagination of our Founders, even those who were skeptical of Article III. Worse, they refuse to use the Constitution as originally conceived as the guideline for determining the constitutionality of laws. Finally, even when applying the Constitution or statutes to relevant cases, they are incapable of divorcing their political views from legal arguments.
SNIP
Moreover, overturning Obama’s executive amnesty is the quintessential role of the judiciary. Unlike judicial review, in which the courts invalidate statutes passed by Congress or state legislatures, this case involves countermanding a lawless act of the executive in violation of congressional statute. At its core the role of the courts is to interpret the law, which is exactly what U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did.
SNIP
For over a decade, Justice Sotomayor served as a Board Member and Vice President of the open-borders legal advocate and long-time amnesty-activist, LatinoJustice. The Ford Foundation and Soros-funded group is at the forefront of efforts to advocate for DAPA’s “legality.” It’s accused the Texas-led coalition of 26-states of discriminating against “Latino families” and trying to bring back Jim Crow and it’s just submitted a brief in the Texas case asking Sotomayor and the other justices of the court to find Obama’s amnesty program constitutional. Judging by her past statements and connections with the organization, she won’t need much prodding.
According to open-borders activists, one “honor” Sotomayor’s earned during her tenure on the court (which has been far from stellar), is her being the first justice ever to use the term “undocumented immigrant” in a court opinion. As attorneys involved in immigration law know, “illegal alien” is the term that appears in our immigration statutes, regulations and case law. For any judge to refuse to recognize that it’s an accurate and objective term, should raise serious questions about their fairness, impartiality and potential for bias.
(A very worthy read at link)
- Discussion
-
All the more reason to fill the court with constitutional conservatives, Cruz will do that Trump not so much as he says I can work with anybody, I don’t think he understands the branches are not suppose to work together, to go along to get along, each branch is suppose to be equal, each one branch keeping the other two branches in check not conspiring together, that’s how we got into this mess abandoning the design of constitution for the conduct of government in our Republic.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.