Illegal Immigration + Activist Judge = Big Problem!

Here's more proof that activist judges are a big, big problem. Michelle Malkin covers the story out of Hazleton, PA where a single activist judge (appointed by former President Clinton) has struck down a tough anti-immigration law that did for that city what Congress should have been doing for America for years. The Mayor of Hazleton, Lou Barletta, spearheaded an effort to adopt city ordinances that fined landlords who rented to illegal aliens, denied work permits for illegal aliens, and made English the official language of the city. Basically, all the things that our current laws say we should do already, and all the things that Americans of all stripes wanted rather than the amnesty bill a few weeks ago.

Naturally, the ACLU and other 'immigrants rights' groups sued on behalf of the illegal aliens.

Though the ordinances have now been struck down, the city is certain to appeal, so there will be more on this in the future. Check out Malkin's page for the full scoop.

This perfectly illustrates the entire point of my blog - to explain what's really going on to people who wouldn't normally pay much attention to politics. You may think that it doesn't really matter who wins elections, but I'm going to use this example to show how it does. First, let's rewind a bit and connect the dots.

The Clinton political machine played out an effective divide-and-conquer campaign to get into the White House (in two elections, Clinton never gained more than about 42-44% of the total vote, but the other candidates had even less). According to the Constitution, the President gets to appoint federal judges, so Clinton made his appointments as was his right to do. Traditionally, the Senate has simply given an up or down vote (yes or no) - if the appointee was competent, he/she was approved regardless of his/her views. In Clinton's case, most (if not all) of his appointees were activist judges. The ruling from Hazleton is what you get when you have an activist judge on the bench - an active attempt to subvert the existing laws of America by 'reinterpreting' them based on the judge's own personal bias. And, there's a new wrinkle now.

Remember all the talk last year about the 'nuclear option' and a potential showdown over judicial nominees? Well, it never materialized since a group of spineless Republicans joined with a group of equally spineless Democrats to force a stalemate on the issue. But, that potential showdown is exactly what this was all about. Since Bush has been in office, the Democrats in Congress have pulled some stunts to block many of his judicial appointments (most of whom are originalist judges) for years based on 'litmus tests' or other phony claims against their competence. This was an unprecedented development for a body that was simply supposed to say yes or no. Why did it start? The events in Hazleton give you the answer: if the Democrats can't accomplish their agenda by getting legislation pushed through Congress and signed into law, they're happy to do an end-around and accomplish their agenda through activist judges.

Do Republicans do this too? Not really. Remember that the majority of the Republican base is conservative, and conservative thought centers on limiting government and putting power into the hands of the American people. Activist judges are a perfect example of taking the power away from the American people and putting it into the hands of an 'elite' few.

So, the next time you think about skipping out on an election, remember this. Elections matter, and politics matters. It may get ugly, and it may get confusing, but by ignoring it, you could be setting yourself up to be the next Hazleton, PA. And you would have no one to blame but yourself.

There's my two cents.