How to Drain the Judicial Swamp
Feb 4, 2017 by Selwyn Duke
It’s no surprise the Democrats plan to fight against the nomination of President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Neil Gorsuch. There are no confirmation battles like Supreme Court confirmation battles because, as we always hear, such a decision can “shape the country for a generation.”
This doesn’t sound like the role envisioned by the founders. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 78, the judiciary is (theoretically) the “least dangerous” branch of government because it “has no influence over either the sword or the purse.” So how have the courts been afforded so much power?
“Afforded” is the word. In reality, the judiciary has become the most dangerous branch due to ignorance and congressional abdication of responsibility.
Conservatives often complain that the courts thwart the people’s will, act unconstitutionally and impose their own biases via judicial fiat. A good example is the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision dictating that states must recognize faux (“same-sex”) marriage. What most don’t know is that Congress could long before have prevented the courts from weighing in.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court and the appellate jurisdiction of the latter. In other words, Congress could simply have prevented federal courts below the SCOTUS from ruling on marriage (and other issues) to begin with and the SCOTUS from reviewing lower-court decisions on those issues. This would, essentially, have left marriage where it belongs: in the states.
Why was this not done?
Congress would’ve had to take a firm stand on a contentious issue and perhaps suffer electoral consequences. It’s easier for politicians to just puff up their chests, complain of judicial overreach, then throw up their hands and say “The courts have ruled — there’s nothing we can do.” Few today understand the Constitution, so who will argue?
Congress also has the power under Article III to eliminate any and every federal court except the SCOTUS. For example, it could have sent the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — known for insane rulings and as the nation’s “most reversed” court — packing long ago. It certainly would make judges mind their p’s and q’s, too, if they knew acting unconstitutionally could mean their jobs.
Again, though, this would require Congress to take a stand. Besides, if it actually did so and drained the judicial swamp, what could Congress blame for divisive political outcomes? The transgressing courts would be gone and the remaining ones chastened, and judges would more often leave issues (e.g., abortion, marriage) in the legislature’s hands, putting politicians on the hot seat. Can’t have that. Federal judges don’t have to be reelected — congressmen do.
Yet this is why courts are going rogue. How can there be a balance of power in our system, as the founders intended, if one branch refuses to exercise its power?
The kicker is that accepting the courts’ current role is not only misguided, but, according to Thomas Jefferson, makes our Constitution a “felo de se” — a suicide pact.
Jefferson was warning of judicial supremacy, the idea that courts have the power to determine what law means and thus constrain not only their own branch, but the other two as well. Why did this bother Jefferson?
The legislature’s power to create law and the executive branch’s power to enforce it are granted by the Constitution. But what of judicial supremacy?
It is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
Rather, this “power” was declared by the courts themselves, most notably in the Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803. Talk about circular reasoning: The SCOTUS has trump card power….
Because the SCOTUS says so.
The result? The Supreme Court was only meant to be supreme among courts. Instead, in a government supposedly of, by and for the people, five lawyers can determine what law means for 320 million Americans.
With Trump poised to transform the SCOTUS, conservatives may say that now isn’t the time to question its power. But Republican judicial nominees have often disappointed. Moreover, draining the swamp is fine, but if we want the right kind of governmental revolution, perhaps we should start by listening to the revolutionaries who created our government.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act)
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 upheld the national origins quota system established by the Immigration Act of 1924, reinforcing this controversial system of immigrant selection.
It also ended Asian exclusion from immigrating to the United States and introduced a system of preferences based on skill sets and family reunification. Situated in the early years of the Cold War, the debate over the revision of U.S. immigration law demonstrated a division between those interested in the relationship between immigration and foreign policy, and those linking immigration to concerns over national security. The former group, led by individuals like Democrat Congressman from New York Emanuel Celler, favored the liberalization of immigration laws. Celler expressed concerns that the restrictive quota system heavily favored immigration from Northern and Western Europe and therefore created resentment against the United States in other parts of the world. He felt the law created the sense that Americans thought people from Eastern Europe as less desirable and people from Asia inferior to those of European descent. The latter group, led by Democratic Senator from Nevada Pat McCarran and Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania Francis Walter, expressed concerns that the United States could face communist infiltration through immigration and that unassimilated aliens could threaten the foundations of American life. To these individuals, limited and selective immigration was the best way to ensure the preservation of national security and national interests.
Remarkably, economic factors were relatively unimportant in the debate over the new immigration provisions. Although past arguments in favor of restrictionism focused on the needs of the American economy and labor force, in 1952, the Cold War seemed to take precedent in the discussion. Notably, the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations took opposite sides in the debate, demonstrating that there was not one, clear pro-labor position.
At the basis of the Act was the continuation and codification of the National Origins Quota System. It revised the 1924 system to allow for national quotas at a rate of one-sixth of one percent of each nationality’s population in the United States in 1920. As a result, 85 percent of the 154,277 visas available annually were allotted to individuals of northern and western European lineage. The Act continued the practice of not including countries in the Western Hemisphere in the quota system, though it did introduce new length of residency requirements to qualify for quota-free entry.
The 1952 Act created symbolic opportunities for Asian immigration, though in reality it continued to discriminate against them. The law repealed the last of the existing measures to exclude Asian immigration, allotted each Asian nation a minimum quota of 100 visas each year, and eliminated laws preventing Asians from becoming naturalized American citizens. Breaking down the “Asiatic Barred Zone” was a step toward improving U.S. relations with Asian nations. At the same time, however, the new law only allotted new Asian quotas based on race, instead of nationality. An individual with one or more Asian parent, born anywhere in the world and possessing the citizenship of any nation, would be counted under the national quota of the Asian nation of his or her ethnicity or against a generic quota for the “Asian Pacific Triangle.” Low quota numbers and a uniquely racial construction for how to apply them ensured that total Asian immigration after 1952 would remain very limited.
There were other positive changes to the implementation of immigration policy in the 1952 Act. One was the creation of a system of preferences which served to help American consuls abroad prioritize visa applicants in countries with heavily oversubscribed quotas. Under the preference system, individuals with special skills or families already resident in the United States received precedence, a policy still in use today. Moreover, the Act gave non-quota status to alien husbands of American citizens (wives had been entering outside of the quota system for several years by 1952) and created a labor certification system, designed to prevent new immigrants from becoming unwanted competition for American laborers.
President Truman was concerned about the decisions to maintain the national origins quota system and to establish racially constructed quotas for Asian nations. He thought the new law was discriminatory, and he vetoed it, but the law had enough support in Congress to pass over his veto.
Judge Jeanine Pirro Show
The Web of Soros and How He Plans to Overturn Executive Orders
Feb 4, 2017 by Mark Angelides
As is well publicized, a Seattle Federal judge has halted President Trump’ executive order pertaining to temporary travel restrictions. What is not more widely known is who is directly responsible for this halt.
The MSM are hailing Judge James Robart’s temporary halt as a brave decision and a fight back against injustice. What the media are largely ignoring is that a judge only rules on a case, the case is brought by a plaintiff and the plaintiff is represented by a lawyer (or group of lawyers).
The poor downtrodden lead plaintiff in this case happens to be named “State of Washington” and the lawyers just happen to mostly be working for George Soros. This was George Soros’ case against Donald Trump, nothing more and nothing less.
The lawyers involved in this case are working with (or employed by) organizations headed up by the ACLU. The American Civil Liberties Union was formed in 1920 and today has more than a million members, around 200 full time lawyers and more than 2000 volunteer lawyers and their estimated annual budget is around $150 million (this does not include affiliate organizations).
Of their $150 million budget, some comes from the taxpayer, some from settlements but a major part comes from donors. Top of this list is one George Soros. An open grant of $50 million was awarded to the ACLU in 2014 and the money keeps pouring in directly from Soros’ Open Society Foundation and other sources that are also sponsored by Soros.
The OSF has budgeted almost $100 million for US activities in 2017, predominantly to be spent on “Democratic Practice, Equality and Anti-discrimination, and Justice Reform”. The fact that a private citizen will be spending $100 million to enact changes in the democratic process and rule of law in a nation that is the benchmark of modern democracy is quite unnerving.
This is nothing more than an attempt by George Soros to undermine and hinder any policy enacted by the Trump administration. Rule number one in media disinformation is to “put a heart tugging image to the cause”.
In the case of the temporary travel ban, we have seen:
A photogenic Iranian baby in dire need of heart surgery pictured on most MSM sites with the direct intention of influencing our opinions on the validity of President Trump’s order.
A very sad tale of an immigrant mother who actually died when she was turned away from the airport. This story later turned out to be another case of the MSMs fake News as the mother in question had died prior to the travel restrictions being implemented. It did not however, discourage the media from pushing the story.
While it’s true that these stories can be very sad, their purpose is to swell support for organizations and movements that in themselves are driven directly by Big-Money groups with their own interests in mind. George Soros is well used to using lobbying groups to drive his agenda. It’s a shame that the once proud ACLU has become nothing more than a lobbying firm for George Soros
Conway: Dems Have Time to ‘Cry and Weep’ at Airports But Not Vote on Trump Nominations
Katrina Pierson and Corey Lewandowski Interview on Fox and Friends Weekend…
Part of the original Trump Team, Katrina Pierson and Corey Lewandowski appear on Fox News Weekend edition to discuss current events and all things political.
Yeah, it ain’t those pesky Tea Party types wearing masks over their faces, beating people, carrying clubs, rioting and smashing windows…. go figure.
Corey Lewandowski interview below:
Related previous post on this blog