- Federal Judges Sitting On
Critical Cases Is Inexcusable
Exclusive to Rense.com
- "At the establishment of our Constitutions,
the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless
members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way
they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means
provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in
office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only,
pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless
become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of
the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one
has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed
in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for
life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson
to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486
- Millions of Americans are tuned into critical lawsuits
that are languishing in the courts. Whenever someone writes criticism of
the federal courts, too many in the legal community and clue less pundits
all chant the same rhetoric: The courts must be independent.
- What the heck does that mean? Independent as in activist
judges who make up "constitutional" justification for their putrid
decisions, i.e., the Bill Benson income tax cases? Prop. 187 out in California?
Don't remember that one?
- Prop. 187 was known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative
back in 1994. It was to screen and prohibit criminals (illegal aliens)
from stealing the resources of the hard working taxpayers of California
for "free" health care, education and welfare. The people of
California had enough. Illegal alien means you have no right to be on U.S.
- But, along comes U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer,
a Jimmy Carter appointee, and says, oh, no. California has no right to
deny criminals tens of billions of dollars in freebies from the sweat off
the back of taxpayers. According to Pfaelzer, the federal government has
exclusive authority over immigration policy.
- Here's a clue for Pfaelzer: We're not talking about immigration
here, we're talking about thieves who smuggle themselves across our borders
(right along with the terrorist cells we know are here and operational).
We're talking about individuals who have no constitutional rights because
they are not citizens. Prop. 187 wasn't about deporting them, it was about
denying those who have NO right to anything in this country from stealing
the resources of the State of California. The voters of California lost
again to an activist judge who is still on the payroll and has been since
- Had I been in Congress at the time, I would have shouted
down the roof to have Pfaelzer impeached. When a federal judge rewards
anyone, regardless of country of origin, religion or race, for breaking
our laws, they don't deserve to sit on the bench.
- All we heard from the "conservatives" in Congress
was the usual huffing and puffing. A Republican controlled Congress at
the time who had the power to throw her backside off the bench and send
a stern message to other activist judges.
- Marxist Hillary Clinton is not eligible to be Secretary
of State under the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- To read the rest of Devvy's column, click HERE
- Visit Devvy's website at: http://www.devvy.com.
You can also sign up for her free email alerts. Devvy's radio show broadcasts
Mon-Fri, 3:00 pm PST, 5:00 pm CST and 6:00 pm EST. To listen, go to: http://www.renseradio.com/listenlive.htm