, , , , , , , ,

As I predicted a few months ago, efforts by the Trump administration to arrest the invasion by means of civil lawsuits, continue to go nowhere. A federal judge rejected (most of) the government’s case against California and its “sanctuary” laws:

A federal judge on Thursday rejected the bulk of a Trump administration demand to block three California sanctuary laws, allowing the state to keep in place its most significant legislative measures aimed at countering President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

Sacramento-based U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez rejected, for now, the Justice Department’s drive to halt a California law that limits the kinds of immigration-related information state and local law enforcement can share with federal officials. The judge also declined DOJ’s request to block another law guaranteeing California officials certain information about local and privately run jails that hold immigration detainees in the Golden State.

While the ruling is a setback for the Trump administration’s attempt to enforce immigration laws in states where leaders favor more liberal policies, Mendez did block parts of one of the disputed California laws, including provisions that banned private employers from voluntarily cooperating with immigration officials and from re-verifying the legal work status of employees.

Mendez, an appointee of President George W. Bush, took a narrow view of state and local governments’ obligations to allow their employees to assist federal immigration officials. He said California had broad authority to limit use of its resources for immigration enforcement.

“Refusing to help is not the same as impeding,” wrote Mendez.

Mendez is probably right about the refusals. And it’s good he rebuked the State’s criminal efforts to interfere with private enterprise. This really isn’t even a setback, being, in fact – as noted above, predictable. Speaking of criminal,

I’m confident there are incidents here and there where the refusals do turn to obstruction. In those cases, there is a ready remedy: 18. U. S. C. 1324. I almost tire of noting this law. Does no one in the DOJ have a copy of the USC or USCA? Maybe a direct letter to Trump is in order.

And, along with the lines of legal cracks, I couldn’t help but notice some are forming in the defense of the baby murder industry. NBC tries to reassure the hellish about their continued practices while roundaboutly admitting the failings of the cause.

Abortion will likely not be illegal in 20 states within 18 months. A new justice will certainly create a new balance on the court. Retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was the fulcrum, now Chief Justice John Roberts is the median vote. But Roe will not be overturned just because there may be a new conservative majority on the court after President Donald Trump, who is set to announce his nominee on Monday, replaces Kennedy.

There are arguments for overturning Roe v. Wade. It was decided in 1973 on a shaky justification: The privacy right to an abortion does not explicitly appear in the Constitution, but it essentially radiates from the glow (the “penumbra”) of its text. Controversial when it was decided, the reasoning in Roe remains as controversial today.

In law schools, they actually teach that to properly read the Constitutional justification for things like Roe, one needs to wear x-ray goggles. Really. Maybe one should shoot up some drain cleaner too.

It’s not shaky, it’s just wrong. If the authority isn’t specifically granted the US, via the Old Parchment, then it is necessarily reserved to the States or to the People. “Liberty interests” were understood and defined in 1787 and they did not include any right to commit murder.

It’s a little funny and a little telling that they don’t even bother addressing the other justification – the allegedly inconclusive medical science part. That was specious at best 45 years ago. Today it’s a dead letter. Dead enough to kill the stare decisis surrounding this modern day Dred Scott.

Not that most care. Most wouldn’t even know what I’m talking about here if they could be diverted for a second from the potato chips and televisions. Some are too concerned about not separating a few thousand children, already separated by their criminal parents, to care about the killing of millions of other children. “Eff them.” Right? Yet others are too busy protesting other aspects of civil society while feigning self-serving outrage about this, that, and the other useless thing. Others … you get the point.

Tick, tick, tick.