Replies

Interesting article. To nitpick--University of California v. Bakke didn't "create" "affirmative action." It affirmed that government bigotry was acceptable if couched in terms of remediation.

The Burger Court's majority on Bakke will be pitchforked in Hell by snow-white, male demons.

Heck, I'm doing my best to end up there so I can join the crowd wielding the pitchforks.

However, the founding fathers were 1ooking to the wrong evil when they feared a loss of State Rights from domination by the House of Representatives. Washington and his fellows failed to visualize the judiciary would become the true threat to the people and the rights of States.

The framers of the Consitution gave 2 year terms to the House and 6 year terms to the Senate, but life terms for the SCOTUS. How could they not visualize ultimate power in the hands of the SCOTUS?

The damage done by the scumbags of the Burger Court may never be undone. There is a ratchet effect to big-government socialism (toothpaste out of the tube, etc.) and the same goes for government supported moral decline. It is no wonder that the Democrats have such a bonechilling fear of honest judges who take the Constitution seriously.

However....

When the Democrats controlled the legislative branch, as they did through most of the duration of the Burger Court, it was in their interest to give the Burger Court free reign to do its dirty work. The Democrats were happy to simply hold their palms up and shrug. That is, the Democrats had no interest in "reigning in the judiciary" since they were all on the same page!

Today, however, there is absolutely no excuse for the House and Senate NOT to act against judicial activism (legislating from the bench) and judicial tyranny (we the Courts have the final word, like it or lump it). In fact, the House and Senate will be maliciously negligent if they DON'T act. But first, the Republicans need to realize that they are under no obligation to abide by and obey the template (complete deferrence to the judiciary) that the Democrats left in place for decades. The Republicans must discard that template since it has no basis in the Constitution.

Plyer v Doe..IIRC one of the arguments for educating illegals children ws that their was no law against hiring illegals..it was beffore IRCA 1986..why can't it be challenged now that their are laws against hiring illegals?

Secondly it was argued illegals underutilized public services and no proof was presented that it was a drain on the finances of the state, which of course have now been proven, my question is why isn't our government challenging this decision based on new evidence? I guess they want us taxpayers to keep on bending over. Fronm the decision:

......First, appellants appear to suggest that the State may seek to protect itself from an influx of illegal immigrants. While a State might have an interest in mitigating the potentially harsh economic effects of sudden shifts in population, [n23] § 21.031 hardly offers an effective method of dealing with an urgent demographic or economic problem. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the State's economy. To the contrary, the available evidence suggests that illegal aliens underutilize public services, while contributing their labor to the local economy and tax money to the state fisc. 458 F.Supp. at 578; 501 F.Supp. at 570-571. The dominant incentive for illegal entry into the State of Texas is the availability of employment; few if any illegal immigrants come to this country, or presumably to the State of Texas, in order to avail themselves of a free education. [n24] Thus, even making the doubtful assumption that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy of the State is negative, we think it clear that "[c]harging tuition to undocumented children constitutes a ludicrously ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration," at least when compared with the alternative of [p229] prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens. 458 F.Supp. at 585. See 628 F.2d at 461; 501 F.Supp. at 579, and n. 88......

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZO.html

~courtesy ping~

Creating the Ultimate Magnet School

[snip]

Here's the upshot: The reason that these children were "excluded" is because they were in this country illegally. It was a no-brainer. The supposedly sovereign State of Texas was no longer going to foot the bill for these ultimate “magnet" school; free public education for illegal aliens. So the Texas legislature, on behalf of the People of the state of Texas, passed a law saying just that. And the Supreme court reversed it

In the coming years, President Bush will be forced to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. I would urge him to not only use Roe v Wade as a litmus test but also insist that his nominees demonstrate an opposition to Plyer v Doe.

He's not going to do that. Though I've posted this link a zillion times and apologize to those who have seen this already, this position piece best explains what we have been seeing as it relates to the Bush Administration's immigration policy. It is worth the time to read, IMO.

Conclusions of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel

"If there was ever a single event that has contributed to the explosion of illegal immigration in our country it was the 1982 Supreme Court decision [Plyer v. Doe] that made it mandatory for every state in the union to educate every single child of criminally illegal immigrants no matter the cost, conditions of their entry, justification or the resources necessary to accomplish this indignation by judicial fiat."

The court based their decision on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which extends equal protection to all American citizens. The only problem with their logic was that illegal immigrants aren't citizens and therefore not entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Well, I'm confused by this. It sounds like the decision would only apply to the children of illegals who were born here. (Nothing else would make them "citizens".)

How does this decision justify mandating the education for the children of illegals who weren't born here? I know that we do educate them, but if the court is citing the 14th amendment, how would that apply to these non-citizen kids?