The federal courts in this country, in their unending quest to act as unelected legislators as well as judges, find ways to take relatively simple issues and turn them into convoluted arguments purposely designed to promote an agenda. We’ve lived with this for decades as the distinction between the judicial and legislative have been blurred.
It makes sense when you think about it. It’s much easier, quicker, and cheaper to retain the services of a public interest law firm to pursue litigation in a federal court that might be friendly to your cause than it is to go through the process of getting legislation through Congress and signed by the president. And it’s very efficient as we’ve seen. One sympathetic federal judge can stop an executive order from the president or legislation passed at the state or federal level with a single injunction that has nation-wide application.
Of course, things are litigated from there, but you know the drill. By the time the case is heard, appealed, remanded to the original court for reconsideration, appealed again, and finally settled, it may not even matter any more. It’s more of an abuse of the judicial system than anything for which we should be proud.
This perhaps paints the federal court system with an overly broad brush, and apologies are offered to those judges who toil diligently to uphold the dignity and integrity of our courts and their profession by a strict adherence to the law, its proper understanding, and its application. They truly are essential guardians of justice in our nation.
The problem is the other variety of judge. The liberal activist who cannot wait for the next case from the ACLU to use as a vehicle to change the nation’s laws by legislating from the bench. And we’ve got one in Texas. In this case, a judge who, not surprisingly was appointed by Mr. Obama, struck down the state’s voter ID law claiming it was discriminatory.
“A federal court judge in Texas struck down the state’s voter ID law on Wednesday, ruling it had a discriminatory intent and effect against Hispanic and black voters.
“The decision is a blow to the Texas legislature and to President Trump’s Justice Department, which had asked the judge to halt efforts to overturn the state’s new voter ID law since it had expanded voter ID options from an earlier version, and would protect the integrity of elections in Texas.
“But U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the Southern District of Texas said the state’s ‘SB 5’ law did not meet requirements set forth from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after it had ruled in 2014 against an earlier voter ID law ‘SB 14.'”
The idea is, or should be, to see that those who are entitled to vote can, and those who do not have the right to vote cannot. This should be simple. Yet it would appear we are doing a poor job in that recent news reports have alleged that some jurisdictions have more registered voters than there are adults eligible to vote.
Texas wants to insure that only those who are legally qualified to vote are allowed to register and do so. The left is aware that Texas has a huge number of illegal aliens who would make terrific Democratic voters. Since many of these illegals are Hispanics, race can be used as a lever to get these non-citizens voting rights.
But the issue of voting rights has nothing to do with race, religion, party affiliation, hair color or anything else. It boils down to whether a person is 18 or older at the time of the election, is a U.S. citizen, has lived in their district the prescribed number of days, and is not disqualified by specific criminal convictions.
Hence, illegal aliens cannot legally vote, and to maintain (or improve) the integrity of our elections, procedures must be in place to see that they do not illegally gain voting rights. Simple.
Here’s the judge’s reasoning:
“Judge Ramos, an appointee of President Obama who also had initially struck down SB 14, ruled Wednesday that the rewritten law did nothing to cure the previous issues of racial animus, and she issued an injunction that prevents the law from taking effect.
“‘SB 5 perpetuates the selection of types of ID most likely to be possessed by Anglo voters and, disproportionately, not possessed by Hispanics and African-Americans,’ Judge Ramos wrote in the 27-page opinion for the court.
“She said the new law didn’t ‘meaningfully expand the types of photo IDs that can qualify, even though the Court was clearly critical of Texas having the most restrictive list in the country.'”
It would be interesting to ask Judge Ramos how she knows that blacks and Hispanics don’t have an acceptable photo ID in the same proportion as whites. It would then be nice to have her explain why she believes that is the case.
Does anyone really believe that any U.S. citizen, of proper age, and not burdened with disqualifying criminal convictions cannot get registered to vote in Texas? That if such a person approached the appropriate state agency to register, that he or she would be turned away? That there are not public interest organizations and media outlets that wouldn’t jump on such an abuse of this person’s rights?
The reason the judge does not like this law is because it prevents blacks and Hispanics who are not U.S. citizens from voting. Just like it prevents whites, Asians, and members of every other race who are not U.S. citizens from voting. The law is thus color-blind, unlike Judge Ramos and those supporting her ruling.
Source: Washington Times