Congress hasn’t passed amnesty? No problem! Judges do it for them

The real fight is in the courts. And it’s all one-sided.

Blue courtroom
tomloel | Getty Images


Once again, despite having the force of the entire political world supporting their effort, proponents of open borders failed to pass legislative amnesty for illegal aliens last week. This has been the result of every legislative effort since 2006. Unfortunately, conservatives cannot rejoice over this. We are no longer a self-governing republic with control of our own sovereignty. The courts have completely taken over the immigration issue, rendering any conservative victory over legislative amnesty moot. Judicial amnesty reigns supreme in a system that regards the judiciary as the final word on all things political.

When courts of law become courts of public opinion  

What if any individual from a select group of people could come tomorrow and declare that the Democratic Party platform is the law of the land and that anyone who disagrees with it is racist and their ideas are unconstitutional? For that matter, what if the same bunch could tell you the Republican platform is the law of the land? And then assert that there is not a darn thing you can do about it?

This is the actual crisis we are facing now.

Courts are engaging in civil disobedience to enact agenda items overnight that have been at issue in the culture war for 50 years — without firing a shot. They will render all the political, legislative, and cultural debates we have in this country moot unless someone is willing to restore constitutional checks and balances.

What distinguishes a court from a legislature is that it can only adjudicate a case that has valid standing, with a tangible and individualized grievance under the law. A court cannot adjudicate abstract policies. A court can’t force other branches to actively pursue executive or legislative powers against their understanding of the Constitution. A court cannot make denizens of aliens and violate national sovereignty. A court can’t rule on abstract political issues. A court can merely grant relief to an individual plaintiff who belongs in America and is seeking to negate wrong action taken against them by an executive that threatens a clear fundamental right.

In the case of Trump’s semi-immigration moratorium, random foreign nationals were given standing through their immigrant relatives because the courts felt that their “prolonged” separation as a result of Trump exercising our sovereignty, in conjunction with “stigmatization,” violated the Establishment Clause — yes, the Establishment Clause, which is about religion. This should be a warning sign to those who think we can reform chain migration without first kicking the courts out of immigration. It’s quite evident that the courts will mandate chain migration based on “not separating families.” But we didn’t separate those families; they separated themselves when members of them decided to immigrate.

Until we settle this simple understanding of our system of governance, we will suffer from a judicial dictatorship of our own making.

Judicial tyranny barely making news

  • Last week, a radical district judge, Nicholas Garaufis, placed a nationwide injunction on the lack of amnesty for illegal aliens and dictated to the president that he must continue Obama’s illegal amnesty, despite statute to the contrary. Our political class, including self-described conservatives, consider this to be the “law of the land.” It will now take at least until the end of April just to get relief from the Supreme Court, even though everyone knows the radical district judges will be overturned.
  • Additionally, the Fourth Circuit once again “struck down” the watered-down version of the watered-down version of Trump’s vetting program for immigrants and travelers from some selected Middle Eastern countries as well as Venezuela and North Korea. The radical panel ruled 9-4 that there is a religious liberty right to immigrate without proper vetting. Using Trump’s Twitter feed as a legal document, the Fourth Circuit contended that an “objective observer” would conclude, although statute allows the president to ban anyone from immigrating for any reason, that because he’s a racist, everything he does on immigration must satisfy the sensitivities of judges. We now have judges who feel they can control sovereignty and foreign policy, and yet the other two branches roll over and play dead. It is now 13 months into Trump’s presidency, and he still cannot exercise the most basic Article II (and Article I delegated) powers to protect this country. 

    Writing for the majority, Roger Gregory mused, “President Trump could have removed the taint of his prior troubling statements; for a start he could have ceased publicly disparaging Muslims.” We literally have judges who now sound like cable news pundits rather than strict interpreters of the law. And they do not stand for election.

    And notice how the Supreme Court’s rebuke of the lower courts did nothing to stop them from marching on to promote their political agenda.

It’s a growing trend. Elections and political battles in Congress don’t matter. Courts are now codifying every Democrat gerrymander into law while throwing out every Republican map. A court in Pennsylvania just forced upon the keystone state a map that is most beneficial to Democrats in middle of an election season.

What about the border wall? That’s in court too. A federal district judge indicated he might block the construction in some places due to environmental concerns, even though the Secure Fence Act explicitly blocks standing in court to sue based on environmental laws.

A group of nine “family planning” groups, including Planned Parenthood, are suing the Trump administration for ending yet another Obama program dolling out taxpayer funds to their private groups. After all, anything Obama did must be codified into law. In case you think the judges would laugh this out of court, remember that a Pennsylvania federal judge recently ordered the Trump administration to continue Obama’s contraception mandate. States can’t control their own election laws and maps, but they are given standing to sue the federal government for more abortion funding, forcing companies to pay for contraception, and for more immigration.

Frivolous lawsuits now define our political system and they are succeeding

What’s next? Courts will begin mandating the welfare state. Liberal state government officials are already “taking the tax cuts to court.”

Yup, you don’t have the right to carry a gun, but you have the right to someone else’s money, unlimited immigration for relatives, free contraception from private companies, taxpayer funding for abortions, and the most beneficial election procedures for Democrats.

Statute doesn’t matter. Basic rules of standing don’t matter. Elections don’t matter. We have these acrimonious political fights on so many issues in Congress and in the states, yet it’s the unelected courts that have now assumed all of the powers of all of the federal and state branches of government … and then some.

Nothing will change until Congress gets back on the playing field.

It’s time for the Freedom Caucus to incorporate an agenda of judicial reform with the underlying premise of “no social transformation without representation.” All political issues must be decided by the political branches of government. At the very least, Congress must immediately eliminate the ability of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions and disallow courts to grant standing to foreign nationals through their relatives to sue over our immigration policies. They must also begin impeaching judges, such as Alsup, Garaufis, and Gregory, who openly nullify laws in favor of personal sensibilities.

While we all observe the WWE-style spectacle of two parties fighting each other in Congress, just remember that the real fight is in the courts. And it’s all one-sided.

The most interesting stories aren’t told in the headlines. They’re in the FOOTNOTES!

Get Conservative Review’s daily roundup of the most interesting, underreported, and unconventional news. Sign up today!

* indicates required

Author: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.