Scalia: These court rulings would've erased America from history
August 30, 2017
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, March 14, 2014.
Arizona is beleaguered by an illegal alien population larger than the size of any colony when the Constitution was ratified. Yet the state is completely prevented by puny lower courts from protecting its self-determination (sovereignty). At the same time, the island state of Hawaii, under our misguided and corrupt conception of the federal judiciary , has the ability to violate the self-determination of the entire nation and demand that the federal government bring in unlimited number of immigrants from the Middle East.
Turning state sovereignty on its head
Once again, the Justice Department found itself in the palace of the Ninth Circuit this week defending national sovereignty on an issue that should never have come before a court. Given that national sovereignty and immigration statutes no longer have meaning , the three-judge panel haggled with plaintiffs and the DOJ during oral arguments not over the law but over the meaning of the Supreme Court’s edict to allow in anyone with “bona fide” ties to America from countries included in the immigration moratorium order.
In July, the six liberal justices on the Supreme Court refused to stay the temporary injunction of Judge Watson, who ordered the administration to allow in all brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins not only of citizens but even of immigrants residing in America. SCOTUS kicked the decision back to the Ninth Circuit, which dealt with the issue during Monday’s hearing. But there’s one important detail that has been lost in the circus of judicial supremacy and stolen sovereignty: the lead plaintiff in this case is the state of Hawaii. How can a state get standing, much less win on the merits, to require the federal government to bring in more immigrants than it desires in order to satisfy a state?
Which brings us to Arizona.
For years, the federal court system has tampered with every effort by Arizona citizens to deal with their systemic problems caused by illegal immigration. Every commonsense law enforcement initiative, voting integrity law, and financial protection act was “struck down” by the wacky district judges and the Ninth Circuit. The courts said over and over again that the federal government has so much power over immigration that a state can’t even independently complement or enforce immigration laws.
Yet now the courts are saying states can demand more immigration and even strong-arm the plenary federal power over immigration to do so. They have flipped sovereignty on its head — upside-down, inside-out — narrowly interpreting sovereignty as the least common denominator of the desire to restrict between the federal and state governments rather than the greatest common factor of each one’s desire to protect its own sovereignty.
Which brings us to Justice Scalia.
Nobody explained this concept better than Scalia, in his dissent in Arizona v. U.S. on the state’s 2010 immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070. But first some background on S.B. 1070.
S.B. 1070 had four major provisions: It made illegal immigration in Arizona a state crime, made it a misdemeanor for an illegal to seek employment in the state, authorized warrantless arrests of those suspected of being here illegally based on probable cause, and required law enforcement to make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the immigration status of those lawfully detained when there is reasonable suspicion to believe they are here illegally.
District Judge Susan Bolton invalidated all the provisions, as did the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court “struck down” the first three provisions, but upheld the provision requiring law enforcement to check immigration status.
Scalia would have upheld all four provisions, and in his mind, it wasn’t even close. Arizona was the victim, while the lawless courts and their allies in the legal profession were the aggressors.
Scalia began his dissent by noting that states have complete sovereignty over their territory unless their acts are specifically and directly barred by the federal government:
Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result.
He went on to prove how the Founders and early political leaders gave immigration policy to the federal government in order to protect the sovereignty of the states, not violate it:
In other words, the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.
Thus, both the Constitution and the inherent right to sovereignty rooted in social compact theory dictates that federal control over immigration should primarily be in one direction: more restrictive than states would want, not less restrictive. Now, obviously, once the feds were given final say over immigration, the letter of the law dictates that states cannot prevent immigrants from settling within their borders where statute otherwise authorizes it. However, as Scalia noted, a state “has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition,” and in this case, “Arizona is entitled to have ‘its own immigration policy’—including a more rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law.”
Yet, over the past decade, Judge Susan Bolton and several other leftist judges have stolen the sovereignty of the state and voted down, like a super-legislature or an executive veto, every commonsense measure that passed either via state law or ballot initiative. She overturned an anti-smuggling law in 2014 as well.
In 2006, 77 percent of voters approved Arizona Proposition 100, which denied bail to illegal aliens charged with “serious felony offenses.” After this measure was “struck down” by the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. In dissenting from the denial of certiorari, Thomas and Scalia were furious. “Our indifference to cases such as this one will only embolden the lower courts to reject state laws on questionable constitutional grounds,” wrote Thomas.
Returning to the Ninth Circuit case involving Hawaii, ponder for a moment the astonishing hypocrisy of courts upholding federal powers over immigration to such an extreme that states cannot even complement federal laws, while at the same time, states that want liberal immigration policies can directly veto federal laws. Further juxtapose this with the growing list of lower courts that are not only upholding sanctuary laws but mandating sanctuary cities by preventing states and localities from cooperating with ICE detainer requests.
The rulings of these lower, Congress-created courts, which overturn immigration law, popular sovereignty, the social compact, and settled case law stating courts have no jurisdiction over immigration , are now considered the law of the land.
The forgotten man of Arizona
What about the forgotten man of Arizona who never violated any law? Take heed of what Scalia wrote at the end of his partial dissent in Arizona v. U.S. , universally heralded by conservatives and libertarians:
As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment.
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.
There is something fundamentally wrong when lower court judges can destroy our heritage, values, and sovereignty and twist the Constitution and natural law in the most grotesque fashion without facing any reprisal, check, or balance. There is something fundamentally wrong when people delegitimize the pardon of one sheriff — whether you agree or disagree with Trump’s decision — but unquestionably support the de facto judicial pardons of millions of illegal aliens, including some of the most violent ones , even though courts manifestly lack such power. Moreover, Obama illegally “pardoned” (plus gave affirmative benefits to) 900,000 illegal aliens, including the likes of Salvador Diaz-Garcia, who allegedly raped a 19-year old American and broke almost every bone in her face, and yet the courts are using those illegal pardons as a cudgel against Arizona.
Scalia posed the following question at the end of his epic dissent, addressing the political problems of stolen sovereignty at the hands of a lawless executive. The same applies today to the lawless judiciary:
Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?
With polls showing Arizona’s junior senator , Jeff Flake, down by as many as 26 points in his primary against Kelli Ward, an unprecedented position for an incumbent, it’s very possible that the people of Arizona are ready to answer this question.
Tags
Who is online
77 visitors
It's hard to imagine the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court being anything other than extremely Liberal when 65% of the Judges were appointed by Democrat Presidents and only 35% of them were appointed by Republican Presidents.
But that's not all. Most of them live in the most Liberal cities in California and also Hawaii, so as far as being Liberal, I think it is safe to say they are much more Liberal than 65% of them. We now seem to have a country run by Liberal Judges.
Lots of complaining about Arizona do you life here ?
I do, I see little immigration problems and I've been here for over 10 years.
I live in AZ half of the year. If all the Spanish-speaking population disappeared suddenly, the whole state would crash to a halt just as fast.
They do all the work that Anglos don't want. They are essential to the good economic health of the state, as any intelligent observer must understand instantly.
The only real basis for complaining about them is racism.
I find your reply pretty typical of your comments. Everyone who cares anything about the rule of law is a racists in your opinion, evidently.
Do you leave your doors unlocked and if you don't why don't you? You seem to think anyone who wants to go into our homes has the right to do so and we have no reason to think otherwise other than we must be racist.
Is that all you have to say to anyone who still thinks a country should be run by the rule of law?
Everyone who cares anything about the rule of law is a racists in your opinion, evidently.
That's pretty funny coming from you, whom I suspect is a huge fan of one Joe Arpaio--a man who demonstrated over and over utter contempt for constitutional rights, laws, courts and basic human decency.
That's pretty funny coming from you, whom I suspect is a huge fan of one Joe Arpaio
Pretty funny comment, since the SUPREME COURT upheld the provision requiring law enforcement to check immigration status (It's in the article). Isn't that what Sheriff Arpaio was doing all along ?
Everyone who cares anything about the rule of law is a racists in your opinion, evidently.
Don't make us laugh.
You seem to think anyone who wants to go into our homes has the right to do so...
Who are you talking to, six? Not to me. I have never said anything that could possibly be construed this way.
But you aren't really talking to me, are you, six. You are talking to a fictitious person, whom you load with all the nonexistent nonsense that your feverish imagination can invent for a "typical liberal".
What I actually say is unimportant, because you know what I must say, because they are the words of your fictitious "typical liberal".
Reality is so out of date, isn't it, six ?
Are you an open border advocate?
Basically... Scalia would allow the states to ignore the Bill of Rights.
On the condition, surely, that they do so in ways he approves...
BS Bob!
Scalia believed in the law. Why don't you? If you don't like the law then work to change it.
The ninth is filled with leftists that don't consider the right of a state to pass it's own laws. If those laws don't counter federal law then they are legal.
AZ should try again when Trump makes his next appointment.
BTW Bob, you still haven't repudiated all political violence. Care to do that now?
Scalia believed in the law. Why don't you? If you don't like the law then work to change it.
Bullpucky. Scalia, like every other jurist, had his point of view which he dressed up as some kind of fine principle is called, variously, "original intent" or "strict constructionism." These were just fancy descriptions for him to make up shit that he knew what was in the minds of the framers of the Constitution and the actual words be damned. He picked and chose according to his whim and biases in the same way any other justice did and does over time.
So what is it about enforcing the law you don't like?
MAGA!
So what is it about enforcing the law you don't like?
That deflection in lieu of an actual cogent response says everything there is to know about you: GAGA!!
ausmth,
BTW Bob, you still haven't repudiated all political violence. Care to do that now?
You're joking, right?
Aren't you one of those second-amendment-because-guns-against-horrible-evil-government folks?
Of course violence is justified in some political circumstances. American Revolution... remember?
Or... WWII to defeat... ummm... errrr.... who was our enemy... Oh yes!! FASCISTS!
The Brits fired the first shot. That made the revolution justified.
Self defense is justified
Violence for political purposes is never justified.
You still can't condemn violence for political purposes.
Boston Tea Party
Civil disobedience that should have been prosecuted.
You are still wanting to justify violence I see.
Civil disobedience that should have been prosecuted.
Omigawd, that's funny. You will literally say anything when you're trapped. Your last comment on this was that the British, i.e. the lawful government at the time, "started the war" by firing on colonists committing the crime of insurrection, and now you're claiming that the vandalism committed by the real tea partiers should have been prosecuted. You're the very definition of combination of contradiction and vacillation.
Who is trapped? I have always condemned political violence no matter where it comes from.
The left refuses to condemn violence if it's their side doing the violence.
Do you condone political violence?
The left refuses to condemn violence if it's their side doing the violence.
I condemn pre-emptory violence from any side. I am not a pacifist, though. So if a nazi aims a gun at me or fires in my direction even if it's just to "warn" me off, I would feel justified in eliminating that threat on me life if I could. By the way, I've never seen anything from you condemning the violence committed by the extreme right wing elements in Charlottesville. I certainly condemn any violence committed by the tiny antifa contingent among the thousands of non-violent anti-hate, anti-nazi protesters there. The overwhelming evidence is that antifa are mostly anarchist agitators who just want to start trouble and do not represent "the left" at all. Do you condemn all the neo-nazi and white supremacists who showed up helmeted and carry sticks and clubs and in some cases firearms who clearly were hoping for a violent confrontation? If antifa is "the left" then those scumbags must represent "the right" if we folllow your recipe for categorizing. So link to me where you condemned them or do it now. GAGA!!!
So link to me where you condemned them or do it now. GAGA!!!
I did in this conversation. The word ALL means ALL! Left, right or middle.
I appreciate your stance against political violence. When anyone tries to justify it because of political position it is wrong. I appreciate your honest answer so much I will leave off the tag.
See, that's too easy. You haven't specifically pointed out the violence done by "the right," and specifically that done in Charlottesville. Your broad generalization sounds too much like Trump's when it wasn't at all something that was the same on "both sides."
So I have to go through a list just to make you happy? I didn't require you to say antifa.
And it was both sides being violent for political purposes. Escalating violent behavior gets people killed.
Atheist, ... well... Ausmth, too, but I don't hold out much hope...
There’s a very cool interview with an Antifa at:
Thank you Bob for openly embracing political violence if it suits your political goals. You could have just said that earlier.
That now means if openly embracing political violence is fine for the left then it's fine for the right as well. We can't treat US citizens differently now can we?/s
The better way would be to refuse all political violence.
This is Obama's DOJ characterizing Antifa:
Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016 , authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.
The claim that they are just attacking "fascists" is dishonest.
Hi, Sean...
Do you condemn antifa?
Do you condemn neo-Nazis?
Do you condemn White-supremacists?
Do you condemn them all equally?
Why would you condemn one more firmly than another?
My take is that two of these groups actively practice terrorism: murder of innocents, to force obedience of all. The third group opposes the terrorists.
The first two are evil and should be opposed. The third is doing good by opposing evil.
This isn't two-bit politics, Sean. This is good and evil, murder of innocent people.
Will you come straight out in favor of those who oppose murderous terrorists? Or will you weasel around to support the fascists?
Good or evil, Sean.
Looks like you triggered Bob Mr. C.
Are you saying that antifa's "violence", with no one dead, balances the thousands of innocents murdered by the fascists? This is a simple question.
The United States used considerable force against fascists in WWII. Did American violence balance German violence? Again, a simple question.
Is it wrong to oppose evil, violently if necessary? A very simple question.
I think (hope) that you are just playing word games... counting points in some silly game in your head. The alternative would be that you are indeed a fellow-traveler, looking for any means to justify your allies' murder of innocents.
This isn't a game. H9eather Heyer was murdered in Charlottesville. Dylan Roof murdered nine. Oklahoma City's total casualties were upwards of nine hundred. Lynchings of Blacks number over four thousand.
Yes, I very much believe that it it good to oppose evil. I'm not going to be in the streets with a baseball bat... unless my cardiologist is standing right next to me. But I can and will oppose fascism here on NT.
Condemning those who oppose the murderers is clearly a defense of the murderers. You are defending the murderers.
Why?
Bob, we abhor Fascist. I don't know anyone here who doesn't or anyone in my personal life. Now, why don't you use this as a screen saver, so you won't forget it this time. No one here is a fascist and no one here supports fascism.
Talk is cheap, six. Behavior is what counts.
Defending Arpaio, dismissing outright murder by fascists while drumming up "antifa violence"...
We see it every day, six.
And you dismiss antifa violence because you agree with the violence Bob. You support their attack on free speech. You support their attack on opponents of Marxism. You support their attacks on liberals who are not liberal enough to suit them. Violence for political purposes is terrorism. Why do you support terrorism Bob?
Their methods are no different than the violent right. You claim they haven't killed anyone. If their violence doesn't get dealt with before it escalates they will.
Ausmth,
Why do you support terrorism Bob?
I don't, under any circumstances whatsoever.
Apparently, you don't know what "terrorism" is. Lynching a Black farmer who got a bit too uppity... that is terrorism. Assassinating a Nazi officer on a Parisian sidewalk was not terrorism... although the Nazis tried very hard to convince everyone that it was.
Antifa breaks up fascist parades. And you say "terrorism".
Bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City was "terrorism".
Forebombing churches with worshipers inside... is "terrorism".
Breaking up a parade by people who lynch and firebomb... is not terrorism.
Got it, now?
I don't, under any circumstances whatsoever.
antifa is a terrorist organization and you support them.
Breaking up a parade by people who lynch and firebomb... is not terrorism.
Using violence to reach a political goal is terrorism.
... antifa is a terrorist organization...
Again... You seem to have a very strange definition of "terrorism". You apply it to a movement (everything I have read agrees that there is a loose network, not an "organization") that has killed no one.
Antifa never targets "innocents", only active participants in fascist manifestations. Fascists and their fellow-travelers.
Meanwhile, you hesitate to say clearly that neo-Nazis are terrorists, despite Heather Heyer, or that the White-supremacists are terrorists, despite four thousand lynchings.
Meanwhile, you hesitate to say clearly that neo-Nazis are terrorists, despite Heather Heyer, or that the White-supremacists are terrorists, despite four thousand lynchings
Bob! The violence you advocate for is wrong. The violence the sheet head fools advocate for is wrong. You can't justify violence to stop violence. If an eye for an eye is to be the new standard of conduct there will be a lot of blind people in the world.
If the violence isn't ended there will be more deaths. Do you really want more deaths?
The ACLU method is how you deal with sheet head fools! Not the antifa method.
The violence you advocate for is wrong.
I have not advocated violence.
I have said that fascism is evil.
... that combatting fascism is good
... that the thousands of innocent people murdered by fascists dwarf the non-lethal action of antifa to insignificance.
American fascists murder people.
You are making an effort to end opposition to American fascists.
Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]
I hope you haven't thought this through. Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph] I hope you will recognize that murdered innocents are more important than bruises.
The violence you advocate for is wrong.
I have not advocated violence.
Actually you have when you defended antifa's action and in this very post you downplay their violent behavior
I have said that fascism is evil.
... that combatting fascism is good
And I agree that it is evil and should be rejected. The problem is that today's left use the word to describe their political enemies, people they don't agree with and not real fascists.
... that the thousands of innocent people murdered by fascists dwarf the non-lethal action of antifa to insignificance.
That is only because the fascists have a head start on antifa and bamn. If their violence is allowed to escalate they will start catching up.
American fascists murder people.
Murder is wrong. Murder for political goals is terrorism
You are making an effort to end opposition to American fascists.
I am opposing all political violence and that makes me a supporter of American fascists?
You are, objectively, an ally of American fascists.
This is a personal attack and a coc violation.
I hope you haven't thought this through. I hope you don't realize that you are giving aid and comfort to terrorists. I hope you will recognize that murdered innocents are more important than bruises.
I recognize that all violence is wrong and must be stopped. You want to rank the violence by severity before you condemn it. Allowing violence to continue allows violence to grow.
Isn't stopping violence a good thing Bob?
The problem is that today's left use the word to describe their political enemies, people they don't agree with and not real fascists.
OK... Let's be sure we agree on who is a fascist. I have been insisting on neo-Nazis and White-supremacists, precisely because I want no disagreement about who is / is not.
Do you agree that these two groups are fascists?
Do you agree that these two groups are fascists?
I agree.
Do you agree that antifa and bamn are groups who use violence to achieve their political goals?
I have a strange definition of terrorism? This is my definition of terrorism. I already know what yours is.
ter ror ism
No mention of murder? No notion of "violence against innocents"?
I don't think this definition is adequate in 2017.
Murder is a violent act Bob. Why does there need to be a list of violent acts to tell when something is violent.
Have Black nationalists or white nationalists murdered more Americans in 2017?
Condemning those who oppose the murderers is clearly a defense of the murderers. You are defending the murderers.
That isn't true at all Bob! Murder is an act of violence. Violence escalates and grows like a tumor on society. Stop the violence.
Antifa is aligned with the anarchist movement. Is anarchy what you want for the world? Don't you see the fallacy in that question? It's the same fallacy in your claim that if one opposes antifa violence then they support racists. It isn't that simplistic. One can oppose racism and also oppose violence by those who oppose racism. Get it now?
Antifa has killed no one.
Neo-Nazis and White-supremacists have murdered thousands of innocents.
And you insist on antifa's "violence" rather than the fascists' murders.
This isn't difficult:
- murdering innocents is evil
- combatting evil is good.
Unless one is a facilitator for fascism...
- murdering innocents is evil
That is absolutely true
- combatting evil is good.
That is also true depending on the method of combatting evil. I support free speech. Does that mean I am justified to take a baseball bat to anyone who opposes free speech?
Unless one is a facilitator for fascism...
I oppose murdering innocents and I oppose evil. I also oppose violence to achieve a political goal. Does that make me a facilitator for fascism?
Bob,
You apparently need a basic lesson in American history and political science. It's clear you don't really have a basic grasp on the concept of fascism and just label anything bad as fascist. It's like you channel Joe Stalin!
But two can play at that game. Because, by your standards, the progressive left is responsible for the numerous cop assassinations of the last few years by black lives matter , the unabomber, the weather underground murders,all sorts of domestic terrorist attacks by anarchists and communists including the assassination of Presidents, etc...etc., not to mention marching under a flag that murdered millions of innocent civilians.
Why do you refuse to denounce a movement with so much blood on its hands, Bob?
Ok, Sean...
I thought I'd give it a try... but you don't dare play it straight.
Bob, do you think your little slight of hand with victim counting isn't transparent?
Why isn't antifa responsible for the murders of innocents carried out by those whose banners they choose to rally around?
Too late, Sean. I gave you an opening. You refused, and instead want want to insist on antifa without mentioning America's actual terrorists, its White-supremacists and neo-Nazis.
That is apparently the standard response decided by whoever supplies your bullet points. It requires that you ignore the murder of innocents while making much of a broken bone or two.
But hey! Most of the dead are Black, so no problem ignoring them... right, Sean ?
Sorry Bob, but in today's world in the USA, 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks and 84% of whites are killed by other whites. In the real world without all the hype by the media, blacks and whites get along pretty good.
Those thousands of lynchings are fiction, then, six ?
I could post a bunch of photos... and they wouldn't be Photoshopped.
If 80% are not (actively) racist, that leaves quite a few million racists.
Bob,
Why isn't antifa responsible for the murders of innocents carried out by those whose banners they choose to rally around?
How many murders by black nationalists does it take in 2017 to before your start praising mobs who beat and attack anyone they suspect of being a black nationalists?
Why isn't antifa responsible for the murders of innocents carried out by those whose banners they choose to rally around?
Like whom? (This oughta be good).
Do you really need basic history explained to you?
I'll walk you through it if I must, but the millions murdered are pretty common knowledge.
Not really. There are easy one-word arguments, like "Auschwitz".
Or would you still answer, "Antifa is naughty-naughty!"?
False.
Really, you should bother reading the cited case before making completely erroneous opinions. The majority of the Court explains why they overturned portions of the law. It has nothing to do with the bill of rights.
I live in AZ half of the year. If all the Spanish-speaking population disappeared suddenly, the whole state would crash to a halt just as fast.
Why would anyone want them to disappear "suddenly" if they are American citizens?
The only real basis for complaining about them is racism.
Complaining about them? Who's them? and what races are you talking about?
Surely not Hispanic people - they are all descendents of Spain, which is European as is the ancestry of a good deal of America.
I think what you have neglected to consider is the important issue of national sovereignty. A nation has borders or it ceases to be a nation. In the case of the US, the country would be overwhelmed by the worlds poor if we didn't maintain our borders. We take in immigrants all the time, they simply have to immigrate legally.
I think what you have neglected to consider is the important issue of national sovereignty. A nation has borders or it ceases to be a nation. In the case of the US, the country would be overwhelmed by the worlds poor if we didn't maintain our borders. We take in immigrants all the time, they simply have to immigrate legally.
I really have to hand it to people like you who can be so punctilious about following the law (and maybe bending or breaking it a bit) for a person or any entire class of people you don't like (and don't know) and completely contemptuous of the law when it rules against someone you approve of no matter how many documented crimes they've committed.
Atheist, you probably need to read Vic's comment a few more times so you can understand what he said.
That you think Vic isn't easy to read is rather funny.
We now seem to have a country run by Liberal Judges.
Yup, the problem has grown well beyond the 9th circuit - it is now true of many circuit courts. That was the reason Harry Reid got rid of the 60 vote rule - so that all those radical Obama judges could get approved
The thing is the Republicans went along with most every one of Obama's nominees, but they had to have all of them. How else was his legacy to be continued with him out of office? The Marxist Revolution must go on.
This is the crucial question that should be asked on every constitutional issue:
Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?
If the interpretation favored by a justice obviously runs afoul of of the intent of the states that ratified the Constitution, than the interpretation should be avoided, absent a Constitutional Amendment.
for a person or any entire class of people you don't like (and don't know)
and who don't I like?
Please don't tell me you mean my own blood
and completely contemptuous of the law when it rules against someone you approve of no matter how many documented crimes they've committed.
and who might that be?
The thing is the Republicans went along with most every one of Obama's nominees,
are you sure about that?
Obama didn't get a lot of support for some his first nominees but received overwhelming support for most of those nominated thereafter.
I understand the Republicans didn't jump on board for his first choice a number of times.
These links have some information in that regard and reasons why.
Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?
Of course, that is the question the nation is now faced with.
If the interpretation favored by a justice obviously runs afoul of of the intent of the states that ratified the Constitution, than the interpretation should be avoided, absent a Constitutional Amendment.
You may recall how Obama's justice department used the law to defy the law?
When certain border states attempted to enforce US immigration law that the president chose toy with (via catch & release) - they were reminded by the Courts that only the federal government can enforce immigration law. Now that we have a much different administration the same law is being used the other way - by sanctuary cities who say they will not assist the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.