News-Record.com

Chief Justice Roberts has actually done pretty well this year leading a court that hasn't been ideologically divisive. I think it's something like only 17% of cases this term were decided by 5-4 decisions, down from %30-something last term.

But Don's right, a McCain Presidency will probably yield a conservative court with little regard for keeping peace with the liberal justices and a tendency to rule along ideological lines pretty much always.

"We can eliminate a bad president after four years, but we can’t change the court. It’s important that we know what we are voting for this fall."

I believe this was exactly the point being made by the prior letter Mr. Hallock is attempting to rebut.

The Deliverer will appoint Ruth Buzzi clones or worse, some 'Reverend' with no church to the court who will make Ms. Buzzi look like Clarence Thomas.

Let's assume Don Hallock's best-case-for-America assumptions should Obama win:

1) The 4 "very conservative" [Hallock's term not mine] judges and the one "mostly conservative" judge remain in good health throughout his four or eight years in office.

2) Obama replaces the four old liberals on the Supreme Court with four young liberals --- vetted by all the leftist pressure groups such as the ACLU, People for the American Way, NAACP, etc. that take such an intense interest in Supreme Court appointments.

Surely, social peace and harmony will prevail on all the big social issues judges decide:

*illegal immigration (remember the 1982 Plyler decision, 5-to-4 vote ordering taxpayers to pay for the schooling of children living illegally in the U. S.) and automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens (which may one day reach the courts),

*racial preferences, quotas and set-asides in admissions and hiring.

*coerced school assignments for racial and/or economic proportionality

*curbs on free speech (the "fairness doctrine," "hate speech," campus "speech codes," etc.)

*Second Amendment/gun ownership rights

ETC., ETC?

Wrong,

What hallock is NOT telling you is that the Supreme Court decides only about 75 cases a year.

Thousands are decided at the appellate and lower level federal judges.

One instance that comes to mind: the single Jimmy Carter-appointed federal judge that struck down California's Proposition 187 in 1994, which would have denied many services to illegal aliens and was supported by 60 percent of California voters. The Democratic governor blocked the appeal. That case thus never made it to the Supreme Court.

If the following is true, it seems inconsistent with the original 60% voting for Proposition 187:

" ... some political analysts cite Gov. Wilson's and the Republican Party's embrace of Proposition 187 as a cause of the rapid decline in the ability of the party to win statewide elections. Indeed, current Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only Republican to win a gubernatorial, senatorial, or presidential election since 1994.

"Since 1994 various laws and initiatives have sought to enact elements of Proposition 187. One such measure tried and failed to qualify for a February 20, 2007 deadline. It would have denied deportable aliens public benefits, driver's licenses, and in-state tuition."

JDR,

What the Democratic Party accomplished in defeating Proposition 187 in the 90s --- via a single federal judge and via the Democratic governor Gray Davis' derailing of the appeal --- is to ensure a rapid demographic transformation of California.

It was not support for Prop 187 that killed off the Republican Party in California.

It's that fact that a Democratic Party-appointed federal judge succeeded in overruling a large majority of the then California electorate. By doing so she was able to, in effect, replace the electorate that supported Prop 187 with a new electorate --- more likely to vote Democratic.

Perhaps the current chairman of the California Democratic Party, Art Torres, summed it up best, speaking to a Latino audience shortly after the Democrat judge blocked Proposition 187:

"Power is not given to you. You have to take it. Remember, 187 is the last gasp of white America in California. Understand that."

I would amend his remarks slightly:

Power is not given to you. You have to take it --- especially when it is handed to you by a Democrat-appointed federal judge.

I might add that North Carolina Democratic Party --- perhaps taking page from their counterparts in California --- is proving that they are no slouches when it comes to making our state a mecca for illegal immigration -- by making the state's drivers licenses notoriously easy to obtain (until 2006) and by consistently burying in committee legislation that reduce illegal immigration.

.. a single federal judge and governor ... ensured a "rapid" demographic transformation ... and replaced the electorate ??

Replaced? With folks that can't vote?

Seems both you and Torres are overblowing.

Maybe the Prop' was infact well intentioned - addressing the peoples frustration about illegals - but it was crappily written and counter to the constitution?

" .. the statute violates two of the provisions of the Constitution -- (1) the Supremacy Clause [U.S. Constitution, Article VI] by stepping on ground preempted by federal immigration law; and (2) the Fourteenth Amendment, first, by effectively ordering the deportation of California residents without hearings or other due process of law and, second, by denial of free education to undocumented children, that Amendment's Equal Protection clause."

Gotta link to show what Mr. Scalia thinks about all this? He's the "Constitutional Defender" ..

I really don't know much about this, but I have a hard time imagining so much "power" held by two people. If 60% really want something, they'll get it; even Karl Rove can't work those odds.

I personally believe it's much more sinister and embedded .. the same folks that rail against illegals enjoy the fruits of their cheap labor and therefore few offer little more than schrill lip service .. while the folks that support illegals are bleading hearts who also hold PETA membership.

JDR: "Replaced? With folks that can't vote? Seems both you and Torres are overblowing."

Long term, I'm sure you would agree, it's obvious that Democrats' burying of Prop 187 aids mightily in creating a new Democratically-inclined electorate for demographic reasons alone.

Short term, you have a point. But illegal and legal immigration are subtly intertwined.

Consider: Suppose you belong to a Mexican family, some of whose members are legal, some not --- a not uncommon situation in mid-90s in California when Prop 187 was blocked by the Democrat judge and the Democrat governor.

You now get the message that California will be treat all the members of your family alike, legal or illegal. Would that influence your decision as to whether to remain or not? Suppose would-be border jumpers in Mexico, who may have family ties in Los Angeles, get that same message? Would they be more or less inclined to come the California illegally.

Suppose you are a young, working class white family in California. As the public schools in California fill up with children of illegal and legal immigrants, many of which need extensive language assistance, would you be more or less inclined to stay put, or perhaps move to another state?

Short term the displacement/replacement is slow but real enough.

No, Torres knew what he was talking about.

As to the allegedly "crappily written" language of Prop 187, I assume you are quoting the Jimmy Carter judge's decision. It does not matter.

The ethnocentric groups in California and their legal teams were desperate to keep appeal from moving to the next level. They put intense pressure on California governor Gray Davis to scuttle the appeal --- for fear the Jimmy Carter judge would be reversed.

Governor Davis dutifully did their bidding.

you are full of partisan crap, my friend.

I'm not defending anyone but to continue to assert that 2 people - overrode (according to the lovely bitch Ann Coulter): ".. a landslide with a nearly 20-point margin .. supported by two-thirds of white voters, half of black and Asian voters, and even one-third of Hispanic voters .. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed with a 12-point margin". ... is just silly.

JDR: "...you are full of partisan crap, my friend."

Surely, JDR, you do not doubt that the Democratic Party is the tool of illegal alien lobby?

What the Democrats did with Proposition 187 is but ONE of hundreds of examples. I know that one well because I lived in California and even wrote piece on it for EducationNews.org: "Proposition 187: 'Last Gasp of White America in California" (complete with audio of the California Democratic Party Chairman, Art Torres):
http://www.ednews.org/articles/86/1/Proposition-187-quotLast-Gasp-of-White-America-in-Californiaquot/Page1.html

It has some juicy details.

Art Torres was right to gloat about what the his party had done to whites in California.

But enough of Proposition 187.

Just look to the leader of the party you accuse me of treating less than tenderly:

Is this fellow a champion of illegal immigration or not?

1) Drivers licenses for illegal aliens

“Sen. Barack Obama . . . is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.”

"... Obama's stand could come back to haunt him not only in a general election, but with other voters in California, where driver's licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.” (“Obama takes big risk on driver's license issue,” Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau, January 28, 2008):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/28/MNH1UL57Q.DTL

2) citizenship for Illegal aliens:
“Nobody in the Senate, other than maybe Ted Kennedy, has been more consistent in saying we need to have a pathway to citizenship for those who are undocumented, already here . . .” (Obama in his interview with Univision [Spanish language TV network] anchor Jorge Ramos, CNN Transcript, May 30, 2008):
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/30/ldt.01.html

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: “Senator Barack Obama guaranteed a new comprehensive immigration reform plan within his first year in office during a lengthy interview this week with Spanish language TV network, Univision.”

3) Making sure U. S. kids can speak Spanish:

"Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English - they'll learn English - you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language."

Video: July 8, 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZprtPat1Vk

"Surely, JDR, you do not doubt that the Democratic Party is the tool of illegal alien lobby?"

It is clear to me that both parties are courting the Hispanic vote - any way they can. The trick is keeping the ".. only good immigrant is a dead immigrant .." croud happy while doing so. Seem's at least you are fooled.

1) Drivers licenses for illegal aliens. I'm not sure where I am on that issue - but my sense is the argument is moot. On the one hand: they show up for a license, you show them the back door where a bus is waiting to take them back to the border .. from which they'll just come right back. If you give them no license, they'll drive anyway and either they get away with it for decades (most likely), or you catch them and put them on the same bus, or ... or what? Unless you're ready to shot on sight - a practice which many would be OK with - it's moot. At least if you liscense them, you may have SOME record, however short lived.

2) Citizenship for illegal aliens: Similar argument - unless you are ready to shot them on sight, what is the alternative? I'll wait for your esteemed answer.

3) Making sure U. S. kids can speak Spanish. Frankly it is an embarassment most American speak only one language. That said, they should learn english. Period.

BOTTOM LINE .. this whole Immigration thing is being handled with unproductive stupidity - from near everyone ... and is just silly to assert that 2 people overrode ".. a landslide with a nearly 20-point margin .. supported by two-thirds of white voters, half of black and Asian voters, and .. one-third of Hispanic voters [even] In heavily Latino Los Angeles County ... "

You want a real solution?

Help them stay home. Their countries (many more than Mexico, btw) generally have ample resources .. but they are run by nasty dictators with cronyship as the only path to success. Of course that excludes 90% of the population and so here they come.

JDR: "Citizenship for illegal aliens: Similar argument - unless you are ready to shot them on sight, what is the alternative?"

False choice, JDR. You are capable of much better than that.

There are several alternatives between bestowing the precious right of American citizenship on illegal aliens as Obama wants to do (ensuring tens of millions more will follow that path) and shooting illegal aliens on sight.

The wiser policy --- unless one happens to be an illegal alien OR a Democrat bigwig like Art Torres who relishes the silent reconquista --- is "attritution-through-enforcement".

I'll share the Federation for American Immigration Reform's [FAIR's] 43-word capsule definition:

Secure the borders
Apply strong and serious worksite enforcement
Eliminate document fraud
Reform unwitting accomplices: SSA and IRS
Encourage state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws
Eliminate state and local benefits to illegal aliens
Provide necessary resources to DHS and DoJ.

Three things:

One is funny, and since Kennedy was mentioned in context:
http://tinyurl.com/6bzqhs

The second isn't so funny and is in Texas instead of California, but the principle remains:
http://tinyurl.com/6kohdq

LTE- "It’s important that we know what we are voting for this fall."

The third is Obama himself when speaking to Hispanics:
"when communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids - when nursing mothers are torn from their babies"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071501138_pf.html

Video here- http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=129983

ICE will be lead by someone Obama appoints.

Make no mistake; we know what we are electing this fall. He keeps telling us.

Roger

Oops. More -ed and less Pb.

"Secure the borders" .. like the ruskies did ,, hey worked for them .. or did it? Where are the ruskies now? I forget.

"Apply strong and serious worksite enforcement" Maybe .. there are some clear ond obvious voilaters.. like the entire meat packing industry ..

"Eliminate document fraud" Good luck, dude,

"Reform unwitting accomplices: SSA and IRS" ... AFAIK, they collect but don't payout .. positive cash flow.

"Encourage state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws" ... ahh the ole states rights thing. Were were once talking about Prop 197?

"Eliminate state and local benefits to illegal aliens .." I'm OK with that .. but it too is ... ahh the ole states rights thing. Were were once talking about Prop 197?

"Provide necessary resources to DHS and DoJ" ... Maybe we can redirect the one-way SSA and IRS revenues.

I still say motivate them to stay in their home country. BTW Tom, note all of your CON-servative's solutions require Federal Intervention and / or tax payer monies.

JDR: "'Secure the borders' .. like the ruskies did ,, hey worked for them .. or did it? Where are the ruskies now? I forget."

JDR, there were some minor differences between the U. S. in 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed and the U. S. in 1989 and of today other than their "secure borders."

Every heard of a thing called Communism?

I know you understand all this.

The purpose of these end-of-thread silly posts is to divert attention from the devastating facts I (and now Roger) laid out earlier about the Democratic Party and/or its leader.

I try to hide what the Democratic Party is all about, too, if I were in your shoes.

I'm not defending neither Democratic party nor its err apparent - and that's not a typo. I am saying to blame them for everything is between silly (if this is all a game which is how most seem to take it) and bloody stupid (for those whom it is not a game).

... and partial proof is the constant call from non democrats (and dems too as appropriate) for a WALL to be built between Mexico and the USA. That idea is: Popular, Expensive, and Ineffective, and therefore both silly AND bloody stupid.

You're right .. there was a difference. The ruskies had a wall, but of course its official purpose was to keep the west OUT of commie China, 'cause if the world know how really good things were inside the USSR, they would be scaling the wall to get in.

According to FOXX News, a 2,000-mile security fence is favored 51-to-37 percent by the American people.

.. and this guy was running for president http://www.gohunter08.com/

"Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter (R-CA) proposed building two parallel steel and wire fences running from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Coast. Hunter called for building a reinforced, two-layer 15' fence, separated by a 100-yard gap, along the entire length of the US border with Mexico. It would include additional physical barriers, powerful lighting and sensors to detect illegal border crossers."

http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/another-mexican-drug-tunnel/

I think it is an incredibly stupid idea .. your milage may vary.

See you next thread.

"I'm not defending neither "

Sorry for the double negative.

should be

I'm defending neither the Democratic party nor its err apparent

I meant " .. its official purpose was to keep the west out of commie RUSSIA .. "

But hey, what about that China wall ? Equally Silly and Stupid. I have no record of the Expensive or Popularity, but according the Mongols, it was clearly Ineffective.

Read about my hero in: "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford ... Unlike my diatribe against literal interpretations of the Bible (see http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2008/07/you_cannot_choose_a_version_of.shtml ) .. Genghis really Did have scribes taking careful and copious notes of his every word, action and deed.

(from reviews) Genghis Khan - the great general .. a secular but faithful Christian, a progressive free trader, a regretful failed parent and a loving if polygamous husband who amassed a greater empire in 25 years than the Romans did in 400 years, and rather than enslave as the Romans did, he allowed freedom of religion, encouraged free trade, developed a paper currency, and observed diplomatic immunity.

See you next thread.