Politicizing from the judicial bench is not just an incredibly unattractive characteristic.
In its simplest form, judges that insist on interpreting the law based on their political beliefs seem to be remarkably oblivious to the fact that their rulings will lead to additional monumental wastes of time and taxpayer dollars.
The rulings are inevitably appealed, and that leads to even more costs for all parties involved.
In its worst form, rulings of this nature can have far-reaching consequences that would make that authors of the constitution roll over in their graves.
Here’s a ruling that falls into the latter camp. Surprise! It has something to do with immigration. Even less surprising, the ruling comes from a judge that was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
From where does this purveyor of jurisprudence offer up rulings? If you guessed the great state of California, you would be right on the money.
The Daily Wire passes along the details on the latest head-scratching ruling.
In another blow to Americans’ sovereignty, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney refused to dismiss a lawsuit that argued Wells Fargo violated federal law by denying loans to illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children. Judge Chesney, a Bill Clinton appointee, argued that the bank violated California civil rights law as well as federal laws prohibiting the denial of loans based on citizenship status.
Both the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund represented more than 750,000 immigrants who came to the United States before age 16 who received protections from President Obama’s unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The program intended to protect those who were registered for deportation despite their unlawful standing in the United States.
As part of its argument, Wells Fargo would make it crystal clear that the law on the books being argued about – Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. § 1691) – does not make any mention of citizenship.
That makes things seem pretty cut and dry, but the judge saw things quite differently.
As such, those that have entered the country illegally and have not corrected their immigration status should be entitled to fistfuls of money.
Makes perfect sense.
Nowhere in either § 1691(a) or 1691(b) does it suggest that discriminating over immigration status is prohibited. However, Judge Chesney argued that a California law that requires businesses to grant equal contract rights to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States includes individuals including those who are here illegally. Furthermore, Judge Chesney also argued that federal law did not supersede the state’s civil rights laws, thus justifying her refusal to dismiss the lawsuit.
This is ridiculous. Federalism dictates that federal law trumps state law. Nothing in the Constitution states that federal law should be held in lower regard based on the feelings of anyone, including the judicial activists occupying federal courtrooms. Our sovereignty and our borders remain jeopardized as long as the federal courts continue to virtue-signal for those who entered the country illegally.
The Left seems bent on ensuring that those who received executive amnesty remain protected, even if the current mechanism to do so was unconstitutional. Even in Trump’s America, much needs to be done to repair the Left’s damage regarding immigration.
While it can be easy to dismiss this ruling and scores of others from left-leaning judges as ‘just the way it is,’ it’s far more serious than that.
Politicizing from the bench is an incredibly slippery slope to begin with, and turning a blind eye to that fact empowers these judges even further.
Think of the constitution as a standard operating procedures manual. Now think of each one of the courtrooms across the nation as franchisees of a larger corporation.
In the franchise world, operators that disregard the manual and conduct business as they see fit instead will have their franchises pulled. That’s an incredibly simple deterrent that works wonders on the compliance front.
Those that have their franchises pulled quickly realize that another vocation with less rules may be a better fit for their talents.
While it’s incredibly wishful thinking, why can’t we do the same when it comes to those tasked with enforcing the law?
We’ll keep our fingers crossed that it will come to pass at some point in our lifetimes. In the meantime, we’re all stuck in an endless cycle of wasted time, appeals, haggling between attorneys, and outrageous decisions based on politics.
Source: The Daily Wire