As we often highlight studies in cowardice and betrayal here at Conservative Review, it’s satisfying to finally have the opportunity to spotlight a profile in courage, especially from someone not named Cruz, Lee, Paul, or Sessions. Today I’d like to commend Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) for his work in derailing another Obama judicial nomination.
Last month, we noted that the GOP-Senate plans to confirm more Obama judges this year, allowing him to cement his control over the judiciary. Rather than simply saying “no more judges who don’t believe in the Constitution,” most Republicans are running scared. After all, Mitch McConnell has already announced he wants to avoid all confrontation with the White House this year.
In recent months, the home state Republican senators of these Obama nominees have been instrumental in convincing leadership to schedule votes for their confirmation. Rather than leading the fight against them, these home state senators, ahem…you know who you are, tend to buckle to pressure from liberal judicial groups and local newspaper articles. Senator Perdue has gone in the opposite direction.
Departing from the tradition of obsequiously signing off on judicial picks from his home state, Perdue blocked the nomination of Dax Lopez to serve as a federal district judge for the Northern District of Georgia. Johnny Isakson, the other senator from Georgia, also declined to sign off on the nomination. As a home state member who sits on the Judiciary Committee this took a lot of guts, especially given that Lopez is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society.
You might be wondering, well, if Lopez is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society, why in the world would Perdue block his confirmation? Isn’t this an amazing opportunity, especially during the Obama era?
During the fight over in-state tuition for illegal aliens in Georgia, Lopez wrote a letter in support of taxpayer-funding for illegal aliens to attend state universities. This is par for the course from Lopez who has been affiliated with an open border group, the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO), for 11 years. This organization, according to one local sheriff, “has called for law enforcement to turn a blind eye towards criminals that have illegally penetrated our borders and then perpetrated crimes against the very citizens I am sworn to protect.”
In my upcoming book, “Stolen Sovereignty,” I will make the case that judicial tyranny and open borders – and the intersection of the two – represent the biggest threat to our sovereignty. The legal profession is now violating the sovereignty of the people by granting citizen rights to illegal aliens, the final frontier in judicial activism before we lose our sovereignty as a nation. The courts are now mandating the release of thousands of criminal aliens, including many who would be considered “dreamers” eligible for in-state tuition, into our communities. The determined and well-greased immigration legal field is now suing a number of states, including Georgia, demanding driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. The Ninth Circuit has already tossed out Arizona’s effort to protect its sovereignty on these issues. GALEO is involved in the lawsuit against Georgia. Lopez sat on their board while he was a state judge while this group was fighting every enforcement effort against the state.
Last year, the Atlanta Journal Constitution published a riveting expose on the threat of criminal alien releases to Georgia communities. While much of the fault lies at the feet of the Obama administration, there is a growing long-term problem of judicial amnesty. Unelected judges violating the 200-year-old plenary power doctrine of congress on immigration policy is the most serious issue we face from the judiciary in the coming years. This is an issue we cannot get wrong. And these lawsuits are brought by groups similar to those Lopez was affiliated with for years. The circuitous cycle of electing judges who served as attorneys for left-wing open borders groups is a huge problem across the scope of our government.
Some apologists for Lopez will suggest that his support for open borders as a matter of policy will not have bearings on his legal decisions. Anyone who believes that has not been paying attention to the legal profession and the judiciary. When it comes to those who support liberal policies but uphold originalist jurisprudence when the legal decision conflicts with that policy outcome, we can apply King Solomon’s observation: “…but I found not one man among a thousand have I found” [Ecclesiastes 7:28]. This is exactly why so many “Republican-appointees” are so bad on the judiciary. Yes, even if they have a membership at the Federalist Society. And remember, Obama has never made a mistake with a judicial appointment. He knows what he’s doing.
But isn’t Lopez still better than anyone else Obama would appoint?
Here’s the deal: Obama shouldn’t have the ability to confirm anyone because Republicans control the Senate and Obama has already been afforded the opportunity to appoint 40% of the federal district bench. And that is why Perdue’s stand is so important in the broader context of shutting down this nonsense. It’s good to see a member of Judiciary standing up to Chuck Grassley for using the Senate Judiciary Committee to promote left-wing causes instead of investigating judicial tyranny and the racist Justice Department.
Blocking a “Republican” judge from someone’s home state is bold enough. Doing so in the face of verbal assaults and accusations of racism is downright courageous. Other senators should learn from the example of David Perdue and leave all the remaining judicial appointments to the next president.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.