Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law

The Supreme Court? THE Supreme Court? Is that a bit extreme, or am I the only one who sees it as overreaching? True, Arizona's new immigration law is essentially an insignificantly "tweaked" version of the unenforced USC, Title 8 (Chapters 6 and 12 inclusive) "Immigration and Nationality". However, it is not the legality of the federal law being challenged, nor is it the failure of the federal government to enforce the provisions of USC, Title 8 that's being challenged. What is under siege by the Obama administration's DOJ lackey, Eric Holder, Jr., is the right of the states to create their own laws. Here comes that pesky Constitution again...

Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution gives the United States the power to make laws... it also charges them with the responsibility to enforce those laws! The logical questions seem to be; If the United States chooses to abdicate its responsibility to enforce certain laws, does the enforcement of those laws not fall to each of the respective states, to deal with as they see fit? Also, do the states not then have the responsibility - and the right - to create specific laws that are applicable within the geographical boundaries of those states to insure that persons within their borders are legally entitled to be there? If the protections of our national sovereignty and citizenry are not enthusiastically pursued by the federal government, is it not then incumbent upon the states to provide such protections?

Logic aside (which is always the federal government's position), the Obama administration wishes to pick and choose which laws they will enforce. The United States of America is being invaded by illegal aliens on a daily basis. Who are they? Indeed, some are hard-working, law-abiding people looking for a better way of life. Some are criminals of varying degrees (ALL illegal aliens are technically criminals, because they have violated USC Title 8 upon crossing our border without legal authorization). Some come here for the entitlement benefits, such as public assistance (welfare) and free medical care. Their reasoning makes no difference - if they are not legally entitled to be in this country, they are de facto criminals. But, for some strange reason, these non-citizens are permitted to vote, and those votes are what Obama and the Democrats want. Votes that will enable them to continue to lead this country into economic disaster and soon achieve what we now refer to as "Third World" status.

In the meantime, the Holder-controlled DOJ bypasses the Arizona State Supreme Court, which (again, logically) should decide cases relating to Arizona State law under the Arizona State Constitution. Why? Probably to insure the court hearing the case will be more inclined toward supporting the position of the Federal Government, under the precept of what I call "circumventional victory" (which basically says, "If you don't feel that you can beat them on the appointed field, move the game to your home town"). The feds rarely lose a case in front of the SCOTUS, but the good news is that they don't always win! Finally, there is "hope" - although not of the kind Obama promised, and "hopefully" the "change" will come in November 2012, when Obama is replaced... before he and his cronies completely destroy our Democratic Republic! Keeping the borders open, overwhelming our public assistance programs, borrowing money, and the endless printing of more dollars (thereby devaluing those few that we may have in our possession) is the key to bankrupting the USA.

For further information on the mechanics involved in destroying a nation, Google the "Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis".

Of course there is always the possibility that I could be wrong about all of the above. The odds of that are about the same as the odds against the rising of the Sun in the east tomorrow morning. I may not have all the answers, but I do know what questions need to be asked.

The Buying of The Presidency by Big Money Interests

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court returns on Wednesday to consider ending long-standing limits on corporate and union spending in political campaigns -- a move critics say could give big money more influence over U.S. elections."

Why in the world would the SCOTUS even entertain the thought of such a plan, much less consider hearing a case proposing the existing law be stricken from the books?

Could it be that in the rarefied air of Washington D.C. elitists, with their personal security being provided by the United States Marshals Service, and their $200,000+ jobs, "The Supremes" have lost contact with John Q. Public. Money and power are attracted to one another, and when they combine into a single entity they frequently create a third entity - a revised, all-consuming, monstrous, political behemoth which devours any who dare stand in its way.

At what point does that which is best for "We the People" get taken into consideration? Do we desire, or deserve, "the best government that money can buy", or do we demand that government consider the rights and needs of the people first, and those of corporations and unions after the fact?

Personally, I believe that corporations, unions, or any entity with more than 10 people involved should be limited by law to contributions totaling no more than $5,000 for any single campaign at any level of government (city, county, state - and, at the Federal level, the House and Senate. Relatively insignificant sums would not place our elected officials in the hip pocket of corporate America, the unions, or other big money entities. It would tend to keep them in the service of "We the People" - which is exactly where our Constitution says they must be.

I suppose there's a slight chance I could be wrong about how I see this. With the sinister left-wing direction our current government is taking, it appears that we don't care if the desires of the moneyed few take precedence over the needs and desires of "We the People".

Court Rules For White Firefighters Over Promotions - Sotomayor Overturned AGAIN!

This is a followup to my posting "Rewarding Failure," 5/27/09 - MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer, today reported the following:

"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities."

The sad part is, that Sotomayor appears to be the best Supreme Court nominee that Obama could come up with! Does he not know anybody with the correct talents for the jobs to which he desires them to be appointed?

Sotomayor successfully retains her title as the "most overturned Federal Appeals Court judge" in the country. Perhaps she should go back to law school... for a refresher course.

Here's what the left side of the SCOTUS had to say - "In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them." But, justice actually triumphed over emotion and the improper and abusive application of law.

The majority opinion, rendered by Justice Anthony Kennedy , who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, declared "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

Those who put forth the legitimate effort in time, on-the-job experience, and study necessary to further their careers have been vindicated by the highest court in the land. Unfortunately, it never should have come to this point. Justice should be served at all levels of the court system - not just at the highest level. Justice is never served by punishing those who are successful!

I supposed that in some perverse parallel universe I could be wrong about the way I see this issue...