Supreme Court violates logic, reason and law

Supreme Court, battleground of the Constitution, rules for Hobby Lobby. But is Neil Gorsuch a good candidate to sit here?
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Governor Brewer should not rejoice at the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. US. Calling this a victory for all Americans is a misnomer. In fact the decision violated established US immigration law.

As usual, these luminaries in black robes played two ends from the middle. On the one hand they say a police officer may check an individual’s immigration status after stopping him for a traffic violation. But then these self-serving buffoons say Arizona went too far, by making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work and having them carry documents.

Federal law is unambiguous. Those who are not United States citizens must carry papers showing their legal status. Neither the Supreme Court nor the corrupt Obama Administration can change that. They are not only arrogant but said openly in so many words that they will aid and abet illegal immigration.

Obama’s kitchen maid, SecHomeSec Janet Napolitano, said ICE will not co-operate with Arizona’s officials. (They won’t even take their phone calls!)

What am I missing? You can ask about a person’s legal status at a police stop, but if an illegal is working or you ask for documentation you’re going too far and intruding on federal law. Hey, Mr. Justice Kennedy, you can’t have both ways. The law clearly forces foreigners to carry documents on their status. If you can overlook that, I guess it’s OK to legislate from the bench and disregard existing law.

Sorry, Governor Brewer; your excitement is misplaced.

Governor Brewer says:

Today’s decision by the US Supreme Court is a victory for rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens.

Excuse me if I don’t express any jubilation. But allowing illegals (what part of illegal don’t you and the Supreme Court understand?) to walk about without documents is the same as not enforcing the law. Those documents exist to protect the legal citizens of this United States. Secondly, what do you mean by saying that it’s not a crime to work in the United States without legal documents? If you haven’t heard, our country is bordering on a depression. Only by deporting all illegal aliens can we ease the pain. The United States cannot afford to adhere to the destructive policies of the hypercritical limousine liberals. Nor can it afford judicial activism like this decision if we are to survive as a nation.

Just to remind you: in 1986 our beloved truthful Congress pledged to pass laws to sanction any employer who employed illegal aliens. Did it happen? No! Sound familiar? This same lie spews out the months of the liars in Congress today. That’s another reason to put every one of them on the unemployment line.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts sells out the United States

The Supreme Court itself flouted logic; never mind what Obama did next.

The United States Supreme Court, with several March for Life participants in the foreground. Photo: CNAV files

Most disturbingly of all, Chief Justice John Roberts showed his true colors. He sided with the left wing of the Court. Each of them is a judicial activist having little or no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law. I’m sure Obama and the progressive/Marxists welcomed him on the ship of fools. Shame on you. For every illegal that takes a job, an American citizen goes without. What is it with you? Are you looking for press like Justice Kennedy? I’m sure you’ll be in the news after this blunder. In fact the three wicked witches of the East Coast will love to have you over for tea. (Not to be confused with the Tea Party.)

The Only Solution: Deport Them

There’s only one acceptable way to solve the problem: deport all illegal aliens. We’ve done it before, and we should do it again! To any bleeding heart liberal out there, in the legislature or in any so-called advocacy groups: please wipe away your crocodile tears. Don’t tell me that deportation is “cruel and unusual punishment” or that it separates families. I personally don’t give a rat’s tail. Neither do a majority of the American people. That includes a majority of Hispanics who came here legally, and worked hard, only to watch their tax dollars going to subsidize criminals. Not to mention socialist/Marxist entitlement programs that the progressive miscreants in the legislature created against the wishes of the American people to garner votes in each election.

I digress. President Herbert Hoover started the sensible solution that helped save this nation during the great depression. By his order, the government deported all illegal aliens to make jobs available to unemployed American citizens. After World War II, President Harry Truman deported millions of illegals to create jobs for those that saved the civilized world from the Axis of Evil (Germany, Japan, and Italy). President Dwight Eisenhower, over two years, deported 13-million Mexican nationals so that home-coming Korean Conflict veterans would have better job opportunities. People called that policy “Operation Wetback.” It may have been a politically incorrect term. Nevertheless they got the job done. Wow! Can you imagine if they used that term today!

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton warned:

To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country, would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.

Which is to say, of course, Trojan Horse.

Should I tell you how I really feel?

Therefore I say without trepidation: the word amnesty itself is revolting and unthinkable. It’s the duty of government to admit only those who qualified by legal application.

The Eagle

Related:

Arizona case: sovereignty dead?

5 Responses to Supreme Court violates logic, reason and law

  1. […] and legislators on the bench who either don’t understand our Constitution or are committed to changing it to conform to their personal ideologies. Whatever happened to their oath of office that requires […]

  2. DinsdaleP says:

    It would be interesting to see you and your fellow CNaV contributor Bader Qarmout discuss this issue in a forum together.

    Doesn’t seem to matter how much you can agree on any number of conservative issues – disagree on this one and you’re seemingly a “bleeding heart liberal” as far as you’re concerned. Advocate a solution based on compromise and you’re seemingly a “wimp” as far as RoseAnn is concerned.

    It will be impossible for you and your colleagues to ever develop a coalition capable of doing anything truly constructive for this nation as long as you’re so quick to label, stereotype and condemn anyone who disagrees with a single hot-button issue, no matter how much they may agree with you on others.

    Leadership is about rallying a diverse body of people together for a common cause, but all you focus on is divisiveness while you wait for everyone to somehow, robotically, decide that you’re 100% right and abandon any differing positions.

    You’ll be waiting for a long time.

  3. […] Supreme Court violates logic, reason and law Share this:EmailDiggPolitiCollision Posted in: Constitution […]

  4. NICHOLAS,

    Yes. I agree with your commentary. Spot on!

    The Supreme Court, or, should we now say, the “Waffle Court,” has made 2 bad decisions this week. The latest is upholding Obamacare. Here’s why I believe that to be so dangerous and unsettling:

    “Has the Supreme Court Opened a Pandora’s Box of Unintended Consequence Worms?”

    http://moralmatters.org/2012/06/28/has-the-supreme-court-opened-a-pandoras-box-of-unintended-consequence-worms/

    Pastor emeritus Nathan M. Bickel
    http://www.thechristianmessage.org

    • DinsdaleP says:

      Pastor Bickel, the first line of your linked essay states:

      “The US Supreme Court has now upheld Obamacare as a tax while striking down the Individual [forced] Mandate.

      That is factually incorrect. The Court ruled that the Individual Mandate could not be upheld based on the Commerce Clause, but was Constitutional and therefore upheld based on Congress’ ability to levy taxes.

      The Affordable Care Act is not a tax – the whole “Obamacare is a tax!” huffing and puffing is just the latest attempt to spin reality into something no longer resembling reality.

      A single-payer system, a.k.a. “Medicare for everyone” would have been a purely tax-based approach. The use of the Individual Mandate was a Republican counter-proposal to the single-payer approach, designed to encourage participation in the pool of insured by only applying a tax penalty to people who choose to be uninsured of their own free will. Insurance is still purchased on the open market from businesses, not the government, making it a capitalistic, competitive approach.

      It’s also based on free choice, and a personal assessment of value each citizen is free to make for themselves. If you see more value in purchasing health insurance on the open market, then you can. If you find that paying the tax penalty and foregoing insurance makes more sense for you, then you’re free to make that choice too.

      Romney had no problem applying the mandate approach to an entire state, rather than leaving it to each county to create “solutions suitable to their local needs”. It’s disingenuous to say that scaling this to the national level is somehow different or a violation of local sovereignty. It was only a problem when a non-Republicans did it.

      As I’ve said along with others for a few years now, if you don’t like the law, stop advocating “nothing” as a solution, and propose something better that will get the votes.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.