SCOTUS blocks Obama’s amnesty proposals

June 24, 2016

In a split decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of United States. v. Texas, a challenge to Obama’s 2014 amnesty executive actions. The 4-4 decision sends the case back to Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen.. Meanwhile, DAPA and DACA, both Obama constructs, granting legal status to America’s illegal invaders, remain blocked

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released this statement Thursday, following the Supreme Court’s equally divided decision affirming the 26-state* lawsuit against Barack Obama’s amnesty decrees:

“The action taken by the President was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rightly denied the President the ability to grant amnesty contrary to immigration laws,” said Governor Abbott. “As the President himself said, he is not a king who can unilaterally change and write immigration laws. Today’s ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans — including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law.”

Here’s Barack Obama repeatedly stating (video) that he was the President of the United States, not an emperor and was unable to bypass congress and unilaterally impose laws, specifically saying:

“Such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there would be no repercussions for such a decision, and this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. It would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.” 

That was prior to him doing exactly the opposite.

Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of Center for Immigration Studies, does a fine job of analyzing the action in his cogent commentary: “SCOTUS Doesn’t Abolish Separation of Powers – Yet.”

This 2016 Rasmussen Report survey shows over half of American voters believe providing a pathway to citizenship for those in this country illegally will just encourage more illegal immigration. Seventy percent of Republicans — and 51% of all voters — support GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S./Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration. Gallup polling indicates nearly one-quarter of American Hispanics do not favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

* The 25 other states joining Texas in the lawsuit with Obama over his executive amnesty are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin.


Americans becoming more wary

June 14, 2016

Confidence in many established institutions dropping like a rock

Trust in banks, organized religion, news media, and congress fell significantly during the past decade, according to this recent Gallup survey.

The report reveals Americans clearly lack confidence in the institutions that affect their daily lives: the schools responsible for educating the nation’s children; the houses of worship that are expected to provide spiritual guidance; the banks that are supposed to protect Americans’ earnings; the U.S. Congress elected to represent the nation’s interests; the news media that claims it exists to keep them informed and the judiciary which is supposed to render unbiased decisions. The U.S. military remains held in high regard as does law enforcement and big business.

 The nearly across-the-board decline in trustworthiness of these previously solidly respected institutions has given rise to an increasingly jaundiced view, culminating in higher levels of distrust.


Seeing Red AZ is conducting our own poll, with this two-pronged question: Where has your level of confidence fallen most significantly, and why? We’re also interested in our reader’s solutions.

9th Circus rules 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to concealed carry

June 10, 2016

Court infringes on “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

In a 7 – 4 ruling issued Thursday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, firearm owners have no constitutional right to carry a concealed gun in public. The court  said officials need only grant permits to those with “good cause,” such as facing a specific danger.

The decision of the San Francisco based court — the most reversed court in the nation — is viewed as a victory by gun control advocates and sets a legal precedent in western states — Arizona among them. This decision by the full 9th Circuit reversed a 2 – 1 decision in 2014 by a 3-judge  panel of the appellate court that found California residents have an inherent right to a concealed weapon for self defense.

It was called the Second Amendment.

But Judge William Fletcher thinks differently. “We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public,” Judge Fletcher wrote in the 52-page opinion. San Diego and Yolo counties’ interpretation of “good cause” is a focal point in this case. Both counties define “good cause” as requiring a particular need.

The en banc court (entire bench — signifying a particularly important issue) affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. Several residents who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the “good cause” requirements in their counties. Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Those seeking the permits contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

If you’re interested in time traveling to scrutinizing English law in 1299 when Edward I directed the  sheriffs of Safford and Shalop to prohibit anyone from “going armed within the realm without the king’s special licence,” this opinion is for you.

If you’d like to know why Juan Francisco Sanchez, an illegal alien deported five times, was able to secure a gun to murder Kate Steinle as she strolled on the San Francisco pier with her father, but her father couldn’t have defended himself and his daughter, ask the black robes in San Francisco — a sanctuary city.

The same sanctuary city is where illegal alien gang member Edwin Ramos shot and killed Tony Bologna 48, a father of four and two of his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16 in a case of mistaken identity  — as they were returning from a family barbecue. Ramos was identified as having murdered previously.

These two cases, among many, illustrate “good cause” for concealed carry. 

It’s called a fighting chance.

Legal lynching: The deliberate destruction of America’s Sheriff

June 5, 2016

Larry Klayman is a man not short on credentials. A former Justice Department prosecutor and the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, his legal expertise is impeccable.  For that reason, we are happy to bring you his WND commentary “ll Duce’ judge out to destroy Sheriff Joe,” as our Weekend Reading Guaranteed to Make You Smarter.

After reading this exposé, we ask that you send the link out to your email list.  It’s that important. 

If this can happen to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a career lawman who worked for the feds within the DEA — ultimately heading the agency in Arizona, none of us are safe.

Ducey expands AZ Supreme Court in costly move

May 19, 2016

With the issuance of this letter, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey formally announces his signing of House Bill 2537, which expands the state Supreme Court from five justices to seven. Ducey assures that this action is not “court packing” and goes to great lengths to disabuse any notion that this action is a judicial power grab. He says implementation of the $1 million + plan is necessary to ensure “swift justice,” although Chief Justice Scott Bales contends the additional judges are not needed and expansion “is not warranted when other court-related needs are under funded.” Earlier this month Bales asked the governor to veto the legislation.

“Arizonans deserve swift justice from the judicial branch,” Ducey’s letter states. “Adding more voices will ensure that the court can increase efficiency, hear more cases and issue more opinions.”

In January, Ducey appointed Clint Bolick, a registered Independent and Goldwater Institute lawyer, to the high court.

Judicial appointments are among a governor’s most significant decisions, since jurists long tenures far exceed the term(s) of the appointing governor. Judge’s decisions impact issues ranging from the death penalty to issues of constitutionality. All death penalty cases are automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. 

In the letter explaining his signing Wednesday morning, Ducey said the additional justices will put Arizona on par with states that have similar or smaller populations yet more Supreme Court justices. 

Ducey’s letter explained,  “Adding more voices will ensure that the court can increase efficiency, hear more cases and issue more opinions.”

Rep. J.D. Mesnard, (R-LD 17) who sponsored the bill is quoted as saying the expansion will result in a “greater opportunity for diversity on the court,…including diversity of opinion.”

The list from which Ducey selected currently registered Independent Clint Bolick to the Supreme Court, had just the man to ably meet those requirements. Maurice Portley, a former Maricopa County Superior Court judge was appointed to Div. I of the Court of Appeals in 2003. Well respected, Judge Portley has a wealth of experience on the bench and is black. If Ducey was looking for diversity, Judge Portly would have been the obvious choice,  If Ducey was seeking experience, selecting Portley would have provided that quality and then some. Several of the other applicants had similar judicial experience. which Ducey’s ultimate selection lacked — though he is politically connected.  If that constitutes the diversity the governor touts, we’ve set sail in needlessly choppy waters.

“Court packing” double talk from the devious left

April 11, 2016

Linda Valdez, the far-left editorial writer at the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) is having anxiety attacks over what she repeatedly refers to as “packing the court.” A piece of legislation (HB 2537) winding its way through the chambers allows for the addition of two new Supreme Court justices on the Arizona high court, expanding the number from the current five to seven members. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey would make the appointments filling the two vacancies if the bill wins approval.

The court building and bench were constructed to accommodate the increased number of justices.

SRAZ currently takes no position on the plan. But it’s interesting to ponder if Valdez would be so indignant if the date were 1937 and it was the U.S. Supreme Court that was under consideration for expansion to as many as 15 justices.

That was the Machiavellian scheme of Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt who planned to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his radically liberal “New Deal” of overreaching  federal programs. During the previous two years, the high court struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government.

In an obsessive power grab, Roosevelt then attempted to mandate retirement at full pay for all members of the court over age 70. If a justice refused to retire, an “assistant” with full voting rights was to be appointed, ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called “court-packing” plan — with the Senate striking it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Ultimately, Roosevelt nominated his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.

Our bet is Linda Valdez would have been all too happy to see such liberal activism from the executive branch in reconfiguring the federal judiciary.

After Franklin Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented fourth term, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was passed, officially limiting presidential tenure in office to two terms of four years each.

Valdez doubtless would have opposed that curtailment of the “president for life” measure, as long as the president was a like-minded liberal. has a wealth of information on FDR and his audacious court packing scheme.

Liberal Merrick Garland: dubbed “centrist” by media

March 19, 2016

Jeff Flake calls Obama’s SCOTUS nominee “less liberal”

The media is playing Barack Obama‘s selection of D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court as a “centrist,” but this selection of facts prove him to be quite different from that portrayal:

During a recent interview on NPR, Obama claimed that Republicans are “worried and scared” that their base will “punish them” should they decide to hold hearings and vote on his nominee for the vacant Supreme Court seat following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. “The bottom line is that there has not been a coherent argument presented” (against confirmation) by Republicans, Obama said. He further states he expects the GOP to relent on his Supreme Court nominee.

We’ve assembled just a few reasons to be suspicious of Merrick Garland:

Merrick Garland’s anti-Second Amendment stance: Garland’s record on the bench “leads to the conclusion that he would vote to reverse one of Justice Scalia’s most important opinions, D.C. vs. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms,” warns Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino. The Washington Times reports Garland has a ‘very liberal view of gun rights.’

More here on National Review.

 Merrick Garland shows deference to labor unions: Garland’s deference has typically proved beneficial to unions. He wrote 22 decisions involving the National Labor Relations Board from 1997 to 2016, according to the legal blog On Labor.

Merrick Garland was mentored by the Supreme Court’s liberal icon: Garland clerked for Justice William J. Brennan Jr., the leader of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing.

 Merrick Garland  sides with the EPA on environmental regulations: Garland “doesn’t come with any inherent skepticism about the federal government overreaching on environmental regulation,” says Richard Lazarus, an environmental law scholar at Harvard University. And leftist publication Mother Jones has hailed him as the savior of Obama’s “climate legacy.”

Merrick Garland revered the author of Roe v. Wade: During a speech in 2005, Garland referred to the writings of Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, as “a great gift to the country.”

 Jeff Flake is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is among a handful of squish Republicrats who have agreed to meet Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. “I hear nothing but good about him,” said the aptly named Flake, who is a frequent traveling companion and basketball playing chum of Obama’s and is generally deferential to him.

This is Flake‘s memorable quote from this past week: 

“But I said yesterday that if Republicans are not successful in the November election — I hope we are — but if we are not, then we ought to look at this nomination in the lame-duck session in November. I would rather have a less-liberal nominee like Merrick Garland than a nominee that Hillary Clinton if she were president would put forward.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 382 other followers