By “each decision… being absent based on the law,” the court “is one step closer to reminding us of (that) helplessness,” his Obergefellv. He warned Justice Antonin Scalia in Hodges Dissent (2015). Now, 10 years later, the judiciary has just received a big reminder.
That is, an activist judge ordered recently by Florida Attorney General James Usmier to halt the enforcement of state immigration laws. And Uthmeier, the realist elected by the people, essentially replied:
I'm going to Pond Sandwich.
As Fox News reported on Friday:
The law allows for misdemeanor charges against illegal immigrants who want to enter Florida and avoid federal immigration officials.
“The judge wants to mark my approval on an order that prohibits all state law enforcement from enforcing Florida immigration laws, as ACLU cases have been awarded before Obama's Miami federal judge Kathleen Williams. If law enforcement is not a party to the law enforcement, and if law enforcement is a party to the law enforcement, then he would like to mark my approval of an order that prohibits all state law enforcement agencies from enforcing Florida immigration laws.
“I'm not going to do that. I believe the courts step over there and lack jurisdiction and won't tell law enforcement to stop fulfilling their constitutional obligations,” Uthmeier told Fox News Digital.
“…The ACLU is set to block President Donald Trump's efforts to detain and deport illegals. We will fight back. We will defend the law vigorously and advance President Trump's agenda on illegal immigration.”
The lawsuit, which spurred the injunction, claims that Florida law violates the hegemony clause.
Stay in your lane, your honor
Regarding AG reasoning, the Miami Herald wrote Wednesday and provided more detail.
Uthmeier's office argued that the immigration group lawsuit applies only to his office in Florida and to the state prosecutors, noting that “the court's ruling binds only parties to the lawsuit.”
His office's lawyers argued that the judge's decision would not be applied to “independent” law enforcement agencies, such as the Florida Highway Patrol, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the county sheriff's office and local police.
“They are not a party,” the Attorney General's office argued, as it was not “active concerts or participation” with his office in Florida or with state prosecutors.
Uthmeier also emphasized that Williams' application of the order to non-party parties was a “later expansion” of it. This was “wrong,” he said.
As for Judge Williams, she said she was “shocked” that AG had violated her “order.” A hearing is also scheduled for May 15th, during which time Uthmeier will be found in light empty. But perhaps Williams, and most of the judiciary, should be “shocked.” After all, inherited observers of the Constitution have long been shocked by the light emptying of the Constitution by so many judges. This will be displayed every time you violate the bench in the name of imposing an agenda.
Practical problems
To paraphrase President Andrew Jackson, “The court has made a decision. Now let them enforce it.” Note that again, Jackson was referring to the case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832) reflects somewhat of the current one. It also involved states that ignored federal court “orders.”
Now, as Redstate points out, consider it
If Florida's AG is brought to face a minor cont crime, the person likely to be tasked with bringing him will be Greg Lergedal, a former member of the Northern District of Florida.
And now look at this:
“They seem to be in very good conditions,” Redstate points out.
Of course, L'Ergedal is the real (wrong book) type. He said to his apparent allies, “Sorry, James, I love ya,” but the law is the law – a call for obligation. The hands behind your back. “Except one, the former US S-Service (part of the Department of Justice) is within the administrative department.
President Donald Trump manages the administrative division.
So, like Jackson, if he refuses to use federal powers to impose a court decision on state authorities, what Judge Williams can do is to carve her essential adventurous feet. (This said state power could also resist federal power.)
The judges' government?
There is also the impracticality of treating a judge as if he were kings. After all, there are around 865 federal judges, districts and circuits in the United States. So, do you want to stymie the president's agenda? Just find one of the 865s to rule your path.
This can be done on all issues too. Until the president's four-year term expires, he will mostly tie the executive's actions in court and run out of watches. And this is achieved through life-appointed judges, unlike the president, rather than being elected by the people. The appointed Trump was elected.
Some might say, “But.” “Law is law.” True – Except one:
That's not the law. Judicial hegemony is not in the constitution.
Like Napoleon, they crowned themselves
In fact, judicial hegemony was declared by the court itself, particularly in the opinion of Marbury v. Madison (1803). This Scotus decision declared that the judiciary must be the ultimate arbitrator of the synthesis of law and action. translation:
The court gave the court the power of the trump card (and trump card).
Well, it's like I crowned the king of America and said, “Now I will rule, and you must obey me.” How will it fly?
In this regard, there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson said in 1819 that if the judicial and amendment opinions were valid, “then our constitution is a complete ferro de ce” (suicidal act).
There is a reason why the Fifth Circuit Judge pressed Barack Obama's Department of Justice in 2012 after Obama rejected the court.
And there is a reason for the late Judge Antonin Scalia issued the aforementioned 2015 warning about the inaction of the court. To wit:
Judicial hegemony is a myth.
That's why Jefferson is believed about it, and the Fifth Circuit Judge was uneasy about it, and Scalia warned the court could be told to forget it.
And this myth produced a black-clothed lawyer, a myth manufacturer who imagined the constitution would determine that it was not. They impose these myths on the rest of us as well. It has come when we imposed them what the Constitution directs: their limited, weakest branching role.
