Federal Judges Sitting On
Critical Cases Is Inexcusable

Exclusive to
By Devvy
"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486
Millions of Americans are tuned into critical lawsuits that are languishing in the courts. Whenever someone writes criticism of the federal courts, too many in the legal community and clue less pundits all chant the same rhetoric: The courts must be independent.
What the heck does that mean? Independent as in activist judges who make up "constitutional" justification for their putrid decisions, i.e., the Bill Benson income tax cases? Prop. 187 out in California? Don't remember that one?
Prop. 187 was known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative back in 1994. It was to screen and prohibit criminals (illegal aliens) from stealing the resources of the hard working taxpayers of California for "free" health care, education and welfare. The people of California had enough. Illegal alien means you have no right to be on U.S. soil, period.
But, along comes U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, a Jimmy Carter appointee, and says, oh, no. California has no right to deny criminals tens of billions of dollars in freebies from the sweat off the back of taxpayers. According to Pfaelzer, the federal government has exclusive authority over immigration policy.
Here's a clue for Pfaelzer: We're not talking about immigration here, we're talking about thieves who smuggle themselves across our borders (right along with the terrorist cells we know are here and operational). We're talking about individuals who have no constitutional rights because they are not citizens. Prop. 187 wasn't about deporting them, it was about denying those who have NO right to anything in this country from stealing the resources of the State of California. The voters of California lost again to an activist judge who is still on the payroll and has been since 1978.
Had I been in Congress at the time, I would have shouted down the roof to have Pfaelzer impeached. When a federal judge rewards anyone, regardless of country of origin, religion or race, for breaking our laws, they don't deserve to sit on the bench.
All we heard from the "conservatives" in Congress was the usual huffing and puffing. A Republican controlled Congress at the time who had the power to throw her backside off the bench and send a stern message to other activist judges.
Marxist Hillary Clinton is not eligible to be Secretary of State under the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
To read the rest of Devvy's column, click HERE
Visit Devvy's website at: You can also sign up for her free email alerts. Devvy's radio show broadcasts Mon-Fri, 3:00 pm PST, 5:00 pm CST and 6:00 pm EST. To listen, go to:

Donate to
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros