Why Conservative Judges Are Vital Even For Liberals
The great divide between in politics in this country is the Conservative vs Progressive divide. It provokes battles between left and right throughout our politics and unfortunately in the case of the left they are willing to extend those battles into arenas where they don’t belong. In the case of the legal arena they are willing to abuse the legal system and society at large to wage their increasingly personal wars to make conservatives bend on issues. We saw this with Eliot Spitzer who dug up a hundred year old law that had never been used, not to try AIG, but to create an intolerable risk to their business that effectively allowed him to persecute officers of the company. The city of San Diego just recently tried to shake down energy companies on the theory they might in the future be hurt by global warming. This was little more than a back door attempt to tax gasoline across the nation.
Now we have the ongoing problem of judges substituting the political opinions of their social group for the law of the land on immigration. The Ninth Circuit decisions that somehow decided that the president didn’t have the authority to regulate the borders despite it being explicitly stated he does, in the constitution are prime examples.
The problem with all of this is that they create a situation where we are no longer a nation of laws but a nation of whoever can get a case before the right guy in a black robe. Nobody’s rights, including those of the left are actually protected and we all suffer an uncertainty that makes it impossible to make large efforts because a novel legal theory may well destroy the work.
Liberals of course don’t accept this characterization of their judges, so it’s nice when occasionally the mask breaks and we get to see what lies underneath it.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel filed a Hatch Act violation against a federal immigration judge for voicing her support for Hillary Clinton and denouncing Republicans from the bench.
The independent prosecutorial office recommended disciplinary action against Carmene “Zsa Zsa” DePaolo, an immigration judge for the Department of Justice, for her comments during an open hearing for an illegal immigrant facing deportation charges.
“OSC alleges that DePaolo violated the Hatch Act when she promoted then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s plan for immigration reform during a deportation hearing over which DePaolo was presiding in March 2016,” the office said Wednesday.
DePaolo advocated for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and a Democratic takeover of Congress from the bench during the hearing.
“According to the complaint, the respondent at the hearing was facing deportation and a subsequent 10-year bar on reentry into the United States, which DePaolo called ‘a pretty harsh thing’ that Clinton intended to change, provided ‘the Senate becomes a Democratic body and there’s some hope that they can actually pass immigration legislation,'” the Office of Special Counsel said.
“DePaulo said the Republicans, on the other hand, ‘aren’t going to do anything’ about immigration ‘if they can help it,’ other than to ‘try to deport everybody,'” the office said. “The hearing was open to the public.”
Given how the left works and their proclivity for punishing their own for even slight deviations from orthodoxy, even they should hope to be tried by the law not their ideology. Thankfully this judge is being removed but think of how many out there are just better at keeping their mouths shut.
Drink up That’s it for the Watercooler today. As always it’s an open thread