Sunday, August 21, 2005

Court Ruling Doesn’t End Immigration Problem

By Paul Sylvain - Sunday, August 21, 2005 - Nashua Telegraph

Local governments (whose budgets are being destroyed by claims for public assistance by illegal aliens) are trying to enforce their local ordinances against these invaders to protect their citizens. This article documents the newest court plan to subvert representative democracy by stripping the right of local governments to defend their citizens.
Initially, the first man, cited in New Ipswich, pleaded guilty and was to have either paid a fine or turned himself in to federal immigration officials by week’s end for removal. All that changed when the Mexican government interceded and pushed for the charges to be thrown out.

Unless I’m missing something here, this man was here illegally, without documentation. How can he be considered “not guilty” of working and living in this country illegally? What legal right does he, and the millions of other undocumented – and therefore, illegal – aliens have to remain in this country?

The right for illegal aliens to stay in America is based on seizure of power by the courts, especially the supreme court. Though foreign affairs is supposed to be the responsbility of the executive branch, with advice and consent by the legislative, our judges have subverted this process with their usual tyranical arrogance.

Now, even local courts are starting to rule that NO ONE can interfere with their control of society. They have ruled (against the executive and legislative branches) that illegal aliens have all the rights of citizens. They have a right to welfare, medical care, in-state tuition, your job, and your children's future. Courts are making it clear they will tolerate no resistance to their power to tell you how to live.

The title to this article is itself bizarre. This ruling not only does not end the immigration problem. This ruling is the immigration problem. Court interference with representative democracy is the reason our nation is in trouble.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Justice Delayed, Obstructed

By Dimitri Vassilaros - Friday, August 19, 2005 - Tribune-Review (
... Arizona voters in November overwhelmingly approved Proposition 200, which prevents illegal aliens there from accessing government programs and voting in elections.

And yes, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided not to block its implementation.

But apologists for illegals refuse to say no mas.


If you are having difficulty wrapping your mind around this -- that a law mandating that the law be obeyed is not being obeyed -- well, you should have seen this coming.

The law prohibiting aliens from entering illegally has been ignored for so long and so cavalierly by the federal government that it has led to the breakdown of the rule of law.

Why is it that our judges could not see this coming? They have interfered in democracy for so long, and subverted the rule of law so frequently, that they seem blind to the consequences of their actions.

As this article discusses it is seriously being proposed that illegal aliens cannot be denied complete rights in America because they have "squatters rights".

Do you think that because elected democrat and Republican officials failed to enforce the laws of our land that makes these invaders citizens and grants them legal rights? Can this be a serious legal argument? Our judges think it is. They clearly have nothing but contempt for representative democracy.

Sunday, August 14, 2005

Dem Silence Is Deafening

By Michael Goodwin - August 14, 2005 - New York Daily News

This is an editorial commenting on the attack advertisement by NARAL condemning Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.
What Roberts did, as a lawyer in the first Bush administration, was argue that an 1871 Ku Klux Klan law being used to protect clinics did not apply. That was hardly a radical legal position, and Congress later passed a law specifically to protect clinics.

But facts don't matter to radicals. Under the logic of the smear linking Roberts to clinic bombers, any lawyer representing a murder suspect is guilty of murder.

Even in something as serious as the flaws with our legal system, occasionally you have to treat something with humor. This premise is one of those things! I love it. Even someone as opposed to our corrupt system as I would have a hard time arguing this as the solution to our nation's glut of lawyers.

But just for a moment let us contemplate if this new NARAL sponsored idea was adopted as law of the land. Would the possibility that lawyers who represented a killer could also be put to death ... increase or decrease support for the death penatly?

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

The People Versus The Powerful

By Ilya Shapiro - August 9th, 2005 - Tech Central Station
On August 2, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a Washington think tank advocating free markets and limited government, filed a constitutional challenge to the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA, otherwise known as the Tobacco Settlement). The suit alleges that the agreement between 46 states and the four major tobacco companies is unconstitutional because it violates the Compact Clause of the Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." (Article I, Section 10)

Once again the courts are arrogantly indifferent to the Constitution and have sanctioned a clearly illegal lawsuit settlement in violation of almost every principle our nation is founded on. The settlement establishes an illegal cartel, without any legal justification, that damages the majority of Americans economically. Certain Americans are now having their businesses destroyed by state and local governments that benefit from the cartel. These are businesses that were never a party to the lawsuit, but who are blackmailed into participating in the settlement by tyrants that have to be called fascists. There is no other word to describe their behavior.

The attitude of our courts? The blackmail, extortion and illegal compact are okay with them. Who cares about the Constitution? Who cares about "the rule of law"? Our courts clearly do not care. This is called "the rule of judges".

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

To The Ashtray Of History

By Christine Hall - August 9th, 2005 - National Review Online
Big tobacco companies, as it turned out, did quite well by the [court dictated tobacco] settlement. They raised cigarette prices beyond the actual settlement costs and gained the states as partners in a cartel to hamstring competitors. Small tobacco companies that were never part of the state lawsuits or the multi-state settlement were required to make annual escrow payments to the states. Then, when the upstarts did better than expected and carved into the market share enjoyed by the majors — and state revenue — states responded by passing laws raising taxes, er, escrow payments. "All states have an interest in reducing ... sales [by non-settlement companies] in every state," Vermont's attorney general admonished his peers in 2003.

There is no question; our courts are first and foremost a system of extortion and bribery. They are secondarily a system that turns criminals out to prey on society again. This article focuses on the first of these two egregious practices. Having extorted money from the major tobacco companies, the states then raised taxes to punish the competitors of the companies who were paying extortion. If you think this is just, here is hoping that someday government comes after you because one of their favorite corporations sees you as a competitor.

The Left Is In Conflict With Faith And The Constitution

by David Limbaugh - August 9th, 2005 - Human Events Online

"Meet the Press" featured a debate between Professor Douglas Kmiec and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo concerning whether Supreme Court nominees should be questioned about their religious beliefs.

Perceptive viewers of the debate could see that the real issue wasn't so much the nominees' religious beliefs but the proper role of the courts under the Constitution.

The belief that acceptance of legislating from the bench is a philosophy exclusively of the left has been repeated endlessly by those on the right. It certainly seems that on the issues they care about, it is more likely to be someone on the left who supports using judicial power to remove some issue from legislative control. The example in this article is amazing proof. Mario Cuomo cannot possibly believe that the courts are supposed to make law and yet he defends the practice as if it is totally acceptable. How can he not see the total abrogation of belief in democracy that such a position defines? He says he is a democrat. Does he not have any cognizance of what that means?

I personally prefer, until we have a legislature that is prepared to impeach judges for violating their oath of office and legislating from the bench, that conservative judges be confirmed since it is the easiest short term fix for a serious problem. I simply do not doubt that once conservatives had a serious majority on the Supreme Court they would legislate their own version of undefined "rights".

In addition, I still find it frustrating that the very idea of MASS IMPEACHMENT causes so many people to react as if you were talking about killing their children. What is the problem with taking a group of people, like the 5 justices that ruled in Kelo, and removing them all from office at one time? Don't you think that justices of both the left and right would think about the probability of that happening again and resist legislating from the bench?

Friday, August 05, 2005

Jihadists Versus Fools On The Bench

Editorial - Autust 1, 2005 - The Washington Times
One would hardly know it from the tendentious political speech delivered by federal District Judge John Coughenour Wednesday in sentencing al Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ressam to 22 years in prison for plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, but the Ressam case shows what is wrong with a strategy of using the courts as our primary means of fighting terror -- as the Clinton administration did for eight years.

It is sometimes frustrating to watch the courts take the position in all cases that they and they alone have the insight to make decisions. Running a revolving door criminal justice system, they have become insensitive to the damage they do to society. Their blindness to reality means they cannot get away from their usual lenient sentencing practices, even when the person is an unrepentant enemy of our nation.

Criminals know their rights well. Jihadists know their rights well also. Jihadists are not criminals However judges cannot see the difference between the two. The title of this article is the appropriate response. Such people truly are "Fools".

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

San Diego Seeks To Confiscate 'Little Italy' Property

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 -

SAN DIEGO — The Alsco Laundry in San Diego's Little Italy neighborhood has been cleaning linens for the city's top hotels and restaurants for more than 50 years.


The city wants to move out the laundry service to make way for the [private deveopment] project, which also includes retail stores. But with 150 employees on its payroll and service to 3,000 area businesses, Scacco said the company doesn't want to move

This article says Tom McClintock wants to pass a state law to stop this. The problem with the reaction of people like Tom McClintock is his idiocy in believing that a federal judge will not overrule his new state law as soon as it is passed. What good does it do to pass laws correcting the corruption of a Supreme Court ruling when judges are indifferent if not hostile to anything that the legislature does? Or conversely, with the deference shown by federal judges to seizing property by local socialist governments the ability to claim that the location is blighted will be used as a pretense to ignore the new law. Either way the effort to pass a state law is a complete waste of time.

The question I keep asking, and which no one will answer is simple; when the courts already ignore the words of the Constitution and any law they disagree with, what use is there in passing new laws the courts can ignore? Someone needs to ask Tom McClintock this. His solution will not work.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Your Land Is Their Land

by Debra J. Saunders - August 2, 2005 - Washington Times

A letter on the front of what once was Revelli Tires in Oakland warns: "Eminent domain unfair. To learn all about the abuses of eminent domain, please go to Educate yourself. Pay attention. You could be next."

John Revelli wrote the note after the city of Oakland evicted him July 1 from his own property -- and a business run by his family since 1949 -- so a private developer could build apartments on his land. It especially galls him, Mr. Revelli told me over the phone Tuesday, that while he has been forced from his livelihood for weeks, Oakland has done nothing with his property.

This article is one more among hundreds that show how engraged the American people are at the Kelo ruling. However it recommends one more useless response to an abuse of court power. It recommends that state legislatures pass laws to protect your property. This will not work.

The problem is that federal courts routinely strip such laws from the books, or gut the provisions so that they never accomplish what is intended. Federal judges do not care about state laws. Unelected federal judges with lifetime job security do not care about our nation or the wishes of any other branch of government. They have their judicial oligarchy and they do as they please.

The only solution is one that requires Americans to stop the problem where it occurs. The supreme court is the problem. So MASS IMPEACH all the justices that rule in favor of rulings like Kelo. They have violated their oath of office. What stronger grounds do you need to impeach someone? Write your legislator and say forget useless and meaningless pretenses about fixing the problem with useless laws. Impeach the judges.