Written by Nicholas Vetrisek
In yet another display of activist judges affecting what should be a strictly legal matter, the Supreme Court refused to hear the Trump administration’s legal case against California’s sanctuary state laws.
The Trump administration sued California in 2018 on the grounds of unlawful obstruction of federal authorities and the Constitutional provision of federal law taking precedence over state law.
These laws prevent local law enforcement from informing federal authorities about whether or not someone they arrested is illegally in the country in addition to preventing private employers from cooperating with ICE. These laws, despite literally blatantly unconstitutional, are being upheld by the Supreme Court.
Activist courts have always existed, but decisions tainted by politics always sting those that want actual justice to be done. From the “right to abortion” brought by Roe v. Wade to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s defense of explicitly unconstitutional affirmative action policies, the Court often decides based on politics or emotion as opposed to what the Constitution says—and this is yet another example.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court refused to hear Trump’s challenge to California’s “sanctuary” law prohibiting law enforcement officials from aiding federal agents tracking down immigrants who have been released from jail. Alito and Thomas dissenting. https://t.co/l7u9TU9BDU
— Jamil Smith جميل كريم (@JamilSmith) June 15, 2020
On paper, the Supreme Court has a conservative majority, but as shown by the O’Connor affirmative action decision, that doesn’t really mean anything. There are rarely justices like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, who clearly care about the law and don’t let issues of the day affect their interpretation of the Constitution.
It sounds like a fantasy that the Supreme Court would allow a state to harbor criminals and keep employers and law enforcement from voluntarily informing ICE, but that is exactly what has happened. It’s madness, but it’s our current reality.
Vladimír Palko, a Slovak National Councilman, said that there are three ways to start a revolution. The first is through violent means, but the problem is that you put your own life at risk. The second is through democratic means, but the issue with this is the fact that it’s difficult to get people to vote for you.
He said about the third way, “Last decades show that the easiest way to implement a revolution goes through the courts. You can only be a small group. You can even be completely alone. But if you have ‘your people’ at the supreme court of the country, people who think like you, you have won. The court decides and the majority of citizens who firmly disagree with the ruling cannot help it. This is called judicial activism. Those who do not use napkins in front of their mouths speak also of judicial imperialism.”
