Posted on 06/27/2012 5:41:52 AM PDT by kreitzer
I find it difficult to regard the Supreme Court decision on Arizona immigration law as just another controversial or disappointing highest court decision. There is something almost post-apocolyptic and certainly pre-totalitarian when, to invoke Justice Scalia's dissent, the Court has ruled that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing it. Yes, as Scalia put it, it "boggles the mind." It also conjures up truly alarming comparisons with "justice" as meted out by kangaroo courts, show trials and other horrors of totalitarian dictatorships.
We understand such criminal acts of going through the motions as sham procedures that have no intention of upholding the rule of law, but rather go forward to entrench an ideology or regime or, usually, both. It is shocking, therefore, to see even a pale reflection of such things in this ruling, the perfect endpiece to President Obama's recent Rose Garden Amnesty. Maybe it's the context of lawlessness and abdication of responsibility we live amid (I discuss this at some length here). In these lawless and irresponsible times, Arizona's immigration law sets a dangerous precedent, demonstrating how both to re-establish the rule of law and take responsibility.
Is that why, circa 2012, it had to be struck down?
In April 2010 I wrote Arizona and its immigration law, and, looking back, I realize now I should have known the law was doomed. Why?
Arizona suddenly poses an unexpected threat to the status quo of permissible lawlessness, the illegal demographic transformation of this country into a linguistic and cultural extension of Latin America. This out-of-control movement has been tolerated if not facilitated by our political leadership for several decades under the dangerous influence of what we know as multiculturalism, the school of thought that has widely delegitimized U.S. identity altogether. Maybe more than anything else, Arizona's law restores a civic sense that there exists such an identity, and it is, and should be, legally protected. Thus, the multiculti rage.
Don't let the robes, the perfect spelling, the orderliness fool you: The Supremes' ruling only makes this rage officially the law of the land.
It sure seems to me like the fedgov has broken the contract, so the deal is off.
Obummbutt will be around another four years, unfortunately, and then he will go away, never to darken our T.V. screen again. (No pun intended.)
Too bad his opponent is a Mormon bishop whose afterlife job will be to rule on a distant planet, but that's who the Mormons are. They remind me of that cult that offed itself--remember? They were all to meet at Haleys' Comet??
Outstanding article. Thanks for posting it.
Obama will be around for a very long time after he leaves the WH. He is just getting started on transforming this country. If you thought that Clinton was the most obnoxious, involved ex-President, just wait for Obama to dominate things after he leaves the WH and has no constraints whatsoever.
Silver lining: the majority opinion and Robert’s sell-out assures angst/motivation of teapublicans and continuing major hurdle to “comprehensive immigration reform—Further evidence the Government cannot be trusted to protect the border.
Court’s ruling is illogical. Executive Branch refuses to enforce the immigration laws as enacted. Constitution compels that the Executive Bramch must be free to thwart enforcement of law at the expense of the States who’s protection the law was designed to effect.
But none of the laws they pass can usurp the constitution.
It is up to we the people to LEARN the law and to protect it, even if by nullification.
The very reason the problems of illegal immigration have been allowed to get out of control is because it is seen as a political issue by most people who do not live on the border. It is not a political issue but as long as it is perceived that way there will be no solutions. Those that think it is a political issue would be surprised to read posts made here on FR when Bush was President. The border issues have been decades in the making, how can it be political? The issues being seen as political cause our leadership to make some stunning decisions that put our country and our people in serious danger.
The border issues are not about politics or racism and until people figure that out, there will be no solution. Things will continue to get worse until they are so bad the average citizen that doesn’t live on the border will stand up and say enough. By then we will look like another Colombia but that is where I see this all going.
Welcome to the wonderful world of judicial review, one of the great curses of our system. The Framers put judicial review nowhere in the Constitution; you’d suppose if they wanted it in there it would be in there. Since John Marshall pulled his constitutional coup in Marbury v Madison over 200 years ago, it’s been nothing but a source of mischief (e.g. Roe v. Wade, Kelo) or even in one case war (Dred Scott). And when Obama “warned” the SCOTUS (AKA unelected black-robed mullahs) that overturning the ACA would be a bad idea, he was accysed using “Chicago tactics”, intimidation etc. At least there are some principled conservatives like Andrew Napolitano and Newt Gingrich who want to put some serious restraints on the SCOTUS. Hope we’ve learned our lesson. And yes, I think ACA is an abomination, but better it be struck down legislatively—that would give its well-earned demise far more legitimacy.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.