We are told by the political elites that the Supreme Court and even lower courts are superior to the other two branches of the federal government. Now the Supreme Court won’t even wield its supremacy over the lower courts within its own branch of government. This week, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the state of Arizona, effectively rubber-stamping the Ninth Circuit’s decision that Arizona must issue driver’s licenses to the illegal aliens amnestied by Obama’s lawless DACA program. The high court routinely turns a blind eye to utterly insane lower court opinions that violate law and settled precedent.
SCOTUS silence on Obama’s amnesty is really approval
In January, a San Francisco judge ruled that Obama’s amnesty, not immigration law, is the law of the land. Government attorneys knew the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would take forever to render a predictable ruling, so they asked the Supreme Court to expedite the appeal. On February 26, the
At the time, I noted that this move was inexcusable given the gravity of the lower court ruling and the already-repudiated behavior of the appeals court in this very case. Nonetheless, some assumed this was just the Supreme Court being a stickler for the regular appeals process and that within a few months, the court would overturn the inevitable drivel from the Ninth Circuit.
This is where the Arizona driver’s license case comes in and shows the folly of at least six of the justices on the high court (it takes four to accept an appeal).
In 2014, a radical district judge in Arizona forced the Grand Canyon State to issue driver’s licenses to the illegal aliens granted DACA work permits by Obama. Arizona lost two rounds of appeals at the Ninth Circuit and has been forced to wait three years for the Supreme Court just to uphold both federal and state sovereignty against a lawless ruling. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of aliens who aren’t entitled to be here are getting driver’s licenses at the expense of Arizona citizens. Arizona didn’t get an expeditious proceeding! Yet, still, the Supreme Court has refused to take up the case, even after Arizona exhausted its appeals.
There is no middle ground here. There is no way the high court can remain silent when lower courts force a state to offer benefits to people whose deportation is required by federal law. When a lower court says that it is unlawful for the president to follow immigration law, you better believe the Supreme Court has a responsibility to rebuke that judge immediately.
The people’s sovereignty has been stolen at both the state and federal levels
It’s a crying shame that Scalia is no longer with us, because he would undoubtedly have issued a sharp dissent from the denial of Arizona’s appeal. Scalia was a big proponent of both federal and state sovereignty on immigration. He understood that immigration is subject to state and federal sovereignty as properly defined in law, not a lawless president’s expansionist immigration policies or a state’s violation of federal law. “The naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it,” wrote an irate Scalia in his dissent in Arizona v. U.S. on the state’s 2010 immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070.
The states bear the brunt of the cost of illegal aliens. The drug-running is tearing our communities apart. Illegal aliens are disenfranchising Americans. There is a seamless flow from obtaining a driver’s license to voting via the motor-voter laws. Yet the Ninth Circuit has prevented Arizona from verifying proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. Oh, and the Supreme Court refused to grant Arizona relief from that crazy opinion, too.
Thus, states like California are free to offer nearly one million illegal aliens driver’s licenses, opening the door for many of them to glide into voter registration and steal the sovereignty of the entire federal union in federal elections. And Arizona is told it must give licenses to illegals and risk having them adulterate elections too!
Shockingly, the Department of Justice, even after the election of Donald Trump, argued against Arizona!
Unless something is done to reform the judiciary, we will be left with one-way federalism. Liberal states get everything they want, even when it runs counter to federal law and the Constitution, while conservative states can’t uphold the plain meaning of the Constitution and longstanding federal law. In other words: a banana republic.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.