Kings on the bench: Lawless judge declares Texas a sanctuary STATE
Chess king

Kings on the bench: Lawless judge declares Texas sanctuary state

Posted August 31, 2017 08:47 AM by Daniel Horowitz Chess king
dziobek | Getty Images
    • Font Size
    • A
    • A
    • A


The ink had barely dried on my Wednesday column about judges who are stealing our sovereignty when another rogue judge in Texas issued what is perhaps the most radical decision on immigration of all time.

Our body politic has agreed to the false notion that even lower federal courts are the sole and final law of the land — no matter the policy issue, no matter the Constitution, no matter the views and powers of the other branches of the federal government and the states. Thus, “gay marriage” is the law of the land, transgenderism is the law of the land, 15 days of early voting is the law of the land, voting without photo ID is the law of the land, unlimited Somali immigration is the law of the land — even when all these fantasies directly contradict the actual laws of the land, duly passed by legislatures and signed by chief executives at the state and federal levels.

Well, now sanctuary cities are the law of the land.

Coming on the heels of another federal judge blocking Texas’ photo ID law, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee who previously redefined marriage from the bench, blocked most of Senate Bill 4, which was designed to clamp down on sanctuary cities. S.B. 4 punished local law enforcement that failed to comply with federal detainer requests of illegals held in local jails before they are released. Judge Garcia granted a preliminary injunction, citing “overwhelming evidence by local officials, including local law enforcement, that SB 4 will erode public trust and make many communities and neighborhoods less safe.” He went on to cite the number of witnesses who testified against it as a rationale for the injunction. Who needs a Constitution when we have political arguments? This judge engaged in civil disobedience.

Remember, Garcia is the same judge who earlier this year directly nullified federal law and said ICE detainers are unconstitutional. Now he’s hiding behind federal preemption to say states are precluded by laws he doesn’t even recognize. This judge overturned several of Texas’ district maps earlier this month and was rebuked earlier this week when Justice Alito placed a stay on his injunction.

Federal statute (8 U.S.C. § 1373 ) explicitly states that “a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” Yet the judges are now punishing those who uphold the law and rewarding those who thwart federal authorities.

Even more amazing is that citizens can never get standing in court to sue against localities that thwart federal law, yet illegal aliens can indirectly secure standing to sue states that follow the laws in order to nullify federal law. Ironically, the major cities that were plaintiffs in this suit have only obtained their political power because they are saturated with illegal aliens. Between their use of our courts against us, their ability to influence politics, and the fact that they are counted in the Census, illegal aliens are stealing our sovereignty, our legacy, and our birthright. We are strangers in our own land. Immigration above all other issues demonstrates the emergency of unchecked judicial supremacy, and I examine this in my book, Stolen Sovereignty.

Here's the funny thing: Judges throughout the country are saying that the federal government is powerless to punish sanctuary cities because it would be unconstitutionally coercive. Yet now they are saying state governments can’t do it either. How convenient that these decisions net the desired political outcome in each case.

Courts are now saying states and localities can thwart federal immigration law (but must obey every illegitimate federal power), states cannot enforce federal law, the federal government cannot enforce federal law against sanctuary cities, and now even states cannot enforce federal immigration laws against sanctuary cities. The courts have officially nullified immigration law, prevented all governments from protecting our sovereignty, and empowered illegal aliens over the America citizen.

What can be done

  1. We have reached the point when it’s time for states to simply ignore decisions from lower courts that are 100 percent political and pertain to broad public policy issues, not individual cases and controversies. Enough is enough. Judges are engaging in nullification and civil disobedience against an area of law that for 200 years the courts themselves said Congress controls. It’s one thing to grant made-up rights to Americans. Granting them to illegal aliens must be the final straw. Judge Moore was ahead of his time when he warned that if a district judge could nullify the 10 Commandments, there’s nothing district judges can’t do. Corrupt establishment Republicans hung him out to dry, but if the Texas governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general unite, there’s nothing these clown judges can do.

  2. The Texas delegation should draw up articles of impeachment against Judge Garcia. As I’ve noted before, Hamilton believed impeachment was a remedy against judges who abuse their power, not just those who commit serious crimes.

  3. Trump should demand that Republicans in Congress pass laws restricting the jurisdiction of the lower courts over immigration, a power Congress holds beyond question, given that Congress itself created the lower courts. In fact, the entire notion of granting a lower court any authority of judicial review over state laws is something that needs to be revisited. We must certainly revisit the false notion that district courts can issue injunctions on broad policies outside the case within its jurisdiction, a recent phenomenon that encourages arbitrary forum-shopping. Plaintiffs could always bring lawsuits in state courts, where the judges are elected. That is where these cases should go.

  4. Judicial review is not judicial exclusivity or supremacy, and the notion that the other branches of the federal government cannot fight back is absurd. There’s a reason why the courts have no power of the purse nor power to enforce opinions — “neither force nor will,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton. The courts count on the executives of the federal and state governments to carry out their orders. Attorney General Sessions should pledge to take no action. Congress should buttress his move by preemptively defunding any use of federal marshals to enforce this opinion. This is exactly what the Founders had in mind with three independent and co-equal branches conflicting with each other — with the people as the ultimate arbiter of the outcome.

  5. We need to accelerate the momentum for an Article V Convention of the States to permanently reform the federal judiciary.

Folks, we are living through a judge-created political emergency, the likes of which were never seen even during the depths of the Warren era. The judiciary has now codified the entire Democrat agenda into the Constitution. As such, elections are now meaningless, because to the extent Republicans do anything we’d like them to do, the courts will nullify it. The only reason we don’t see the effects of judicial tyranny more often is because Republicans barely do anything. Yet, the few states like Texas that are trying to restore a modicum of sanity to our government are being bullied by the judicial autocracy.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 33 that when the federal legislature steps outside the enumerated powers to crush the states, those acts are “merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such.” Twenty years ago, before illegal alien supremacism, transgenderism, and redefinition of marriage were in vogue, Robert Bork said, “[T]o the objection that a rejection of a court’s authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience.” It’s the courts that are in rebellion here.

It’s now or never. This issue will only get worse with every passing day.


Want to keep up with what's going on in Washington without the liberal media slant, establishment spin, and politician-ese?

Sign up to get CRTV’s Capitol Hill Brief in your inbox every evening! It’s free!

* indicates required

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