No Right to Rewrite

With Obama’s poll numbers dropping faster than BP’s stock lately, it’s highly likely that “Obama, the None,” will fulfill his prophecy of being a one term president. But his lasting effect on what’s left of the American republic could be decades especially on the judicial system. The decision on Arizona’s new immigration law demonstrates Bill Clinton’s effect even after being “out of orifice” for a decade.

One of the president’s greatest powers is filling federal judicial positions. Often these jobs are for life, and except for impeachment, which is rarely done, there’s nothing the electorate can do when a judge assumes unprecedented powers, and pro-regressives tend to do that because they believe they’re better than everyone else.

They’re better than the founders of this nation who wrote that silly document called the US Constitution. When they rule, the laws legislators wrote and the people support also don’t matter. That explains Susan Bolton’s decision to exclude major parts of Arizona’s law and for the most ludicrous of reasons.

First, she’s a Clinton appointment, which shouldn’t be a factor, but unfortunately it is. Currently, America’s judicial system is clogged with Carter, Clinton and now Obama judges that are for the most part the most partisan of people. Pro-regressives will always say these judges are impartial, but that’s because they agree with most of their decisions.

In Boltan’s case, she struck down three major parts of Arizona’s law. Specifically, sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws, the requirement that immigrants carry their papers at all times and the section banning illegals from soliciting employment in public places.

She essentially has forced Arizona to be a sanctuary state where it’s legal to basically be illegal. Four-term Arizona sheriff Larry Dever said, ”States have a right to protect themselves.” Unfortunately, the feds have allowed Mexican drug cartels to infiltrate at least 70 miles into Arizona territory. In one national park, a hiker will likely be observed by these Mexican invaders.

In her ruling, Boltan wrote, “The court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money [That’s bull]. Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government [Unfortunately, it’s not], it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws. [Again, that’s bull]” At this point a “what” is entirely an appropriate response.

Essentially, her reasons was that Arizona’s law would somehow interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce its immigration law, which it’s not enforcing at all because the open borders crowd claims that government doesn’t have the resources. What’s more ridiculous is that they don’t even want a state’s help.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, much maligned, anti-illegal advocate, reasonably questions, “Why don’t they just say, Thank you, sheriff. Let’s join forces? We cannot do this job alone. We need local law enforcement to work together.” Obama cooperates more with Mexico than he does with US states because he sees illegals as a Democrat voter registration drive. “Get ‘em legal, get ‘em on welfare, then get ‘em voting for Democrats!”

Yet, wacky decisions like Prop 8 being declared unconstitutional when voters approved amending it to California’s constitution are to be expected from pro-regressive judges. Even after the 2010 election, Obama has two more years to select nominees hostile to the republic. In the case of Elena Kagan, who no doubt is a pro-regressive despite her testimony, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) still voted in favor of her confirmation

He was criticized for a diatribe he gave explaining why he supported her. In it he said she wouldn’t be his choice because she’s pro-choice, but still Obama had made a wise choice. There were many other incoherent points. No doubt Graham is a RINO, “Republican in Name Only,” but he did make one valid point. Elections have consequences. Even if Kagan were prevented from getting on the highest court by a Republican filibuster, Obama would have just chosen another unappealing candidate.

The recent 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court affirming that the 2^nd Amendment does give the right to bear arms is nice, but it demonstrates that only a slim majority is upholding the republic. Yet, if pro-regressives are in power long enough, it’s only a matter of time before they eventually replace one crucial conservative vote with a pro-regressive one. Then, the highest court will rule the contrary.

Gun owners will probably have the same reaction as the Arizona’s sheriffs. Sheriff Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He plans to hold it despite Boltan’s ruling. Likewise, gun owners will still cling to their guns, and the Supreme Court would no longer have the right to determine our rights