Objection to court ruling doesn’t trigger rabid attack on court by this conservativeBy RICH ROSTRON
Our Southern border, in contradiction to what we’re hearing from VP Kamala Harris, is wide open. Illegal aliens are pouring over the border in record numbers. The cartels are making a fortune on human trafficking and drug smuggling.
That is the backdrop to yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that the Biden administration can abandon Pres. Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. The policy required those seeking ‘asylum’ to wait in Mexico until the courts in the U.S. ruled on the status of their claims.
This was not the decision I had hoped for. The evidence is clear – our Southern border is wide open and is in a state of crisis. The last thing we need to do is to give the Biden administration more leeway to sit back while illegals, drugs (including the fentanyl that is causing a national crisis of overdose deaths) and terrorists cross the border with impunity. But that is the decision the court made.
I don’t like SCOTUS decision on “Remain in Mexico” ruling, but I won’t condemn the court.
“Nothing prevents an agency from undertaking new agency action while simultaneously appealing an adverse judgment against its original action. That is particularly so under the circumstances of this case,” was the logic, if you can follow it, as written by Chief Justice John Roberts in explaining the 5-4 decision (Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the three Leftists on the court - Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – in making this decision).
To the degree that I can follow it, I don’t necessarily agree with the logic of the ruling but, at the least, I can see that it’s based on some kind of interpretation of law.
I don’t believe we can actually claim to have a country without a border. I think we must do something about the open border and I can see that we can expect no help from the current administration in this regard. But I’m not ready to throw out the court because I didn’t get my way, even on this critical issue.
I still think we need to fight to put in office people who will enforce our laws and respect our borders. But, if I were a Leftist, we know this wouldn’t represent my response to a Court decision I didn’t like.
Roe v Wade has the Left calling to either pack the court (add more Leftist justices until they’re assured of the rulings they want), or to end the court.
The reality is that the judicial branch in America has, for far too long, served as an activist court system where the Left has a second shot at the legislation it can’t get through the actual legislature. ‘If there are too many darn Republicans in Congress, we can always get our way through the courts (from the Supreme Court on down).’
That’s not how America is supposed to work. And, for all the Left’s complaints about nine people deciding our fate, such is only the case when the courts circumvent the legitimacy of their role by acting as a shadow legislature. The court needs restraints. And activists would do well with some restraint, too.