Gov. Ducey Wants Arizona Out of the Ninth Circuit

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

Today, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey issued a call for the U.S. Congress to establish another federal circuit court of appeals that removes Arizona from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his call, Gov. Ducey stated, “…due to its voluminous caseload and disproportionate size, the Ninth Circuit has an abysmal turnaround time of over 15 months for an average ruling… Arizonans deserve better than this from the people in power, and that includes a judicial process that is judicious in nature. It’s time that Congress takes overdue action to resolve this crisis in our courts.” Ducey further pointed out that the Ninth Circuit is consistently overturned with a 77 percent reversal rate.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich joined in stating: “The Ninth Circuit is overloaded and it’s bringing on new cases faster than it can resolve old ones. Reform in this area is long overdue.”

Read the full press release here as well as Governor Ducey’s letter to Congress here.

Action Needed:

  • Urge your U.S. Senator and Congressman to make this much needed change!
  • Forward this email to a friend! It is crucial that Arizona’s Congressional Delegation hear from the citizens in their state.
  • Thank Governor Ducey! Send an email to the Governor to thank him for seeking this much needed change in our judicial process.
  • Pray! Pray that Arizona’s U.S. Senators and Representatives will stand boldly and seek a judicious legal process for the citizens they represent.

The Arizona Conservative says: Bravo to the governor’s efforts! And to CAP for supporting this measure. They took the high road and didn’t say this … but we will say it: in 99.9 percent of the social issues cases going up to the Ninth Circuit, this controversial court will rule against conservatives. The deck is stacked in San Francisco, in favor of judicial activism. And it isn’t fair.

New Book Exposes Left-Stream Media’s Folly over HB1062

Less than two years ago, extremists on the far Left fringe and their media lemmings in Arizona and around the nation successfully waged a campaign of fear, deceit and distortion against a state religious freedom bill, HB 1062. They stampeded Gov. Jan Brewer into fearfully vetoing this harmless, but helpful, bill. Virtually every television station in Arizona bought the lies of homosexual activists … hook, line and sinker, and engaged in yellow journalism. Even a Phoenix sportscaster, Mike Jurecki, foolishly shot off his mouth about what the bill would not do, further spreading the Big Lie, the Big Narrative of the Left. We saw again how gullible, how ignorant and misinformed and how horribly misguided the left-stream media really is. And just how easily the left-stream media could be led by extreme leftists, without pretending to be fair or factual.

Outside of The Arizona Conservative, there were few in this state who really stood up to speak the truth to this manufactured “crisis.”

Now Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation has addressed what happened here — in his book “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.” He writes the following in Chapter 5: Religious Freedom: A Basic Human Right. We think this is well worth your read:

In February 2014, the State of Arizona considered a minor legislative clarification to its state RFRA, attracting incendiary media coverage. The New York Times editorialized that the Arizona legislation had passed “noxious measures to give businesses and individuals the broad right to deny services to same-sex couples in the name of protecting religious liberty.”

The Times got it wrong. The Arizona bill, an amendment to the stat’s 1999 RFRA protections, never even mentioned same-sex couples. In provided that the RFRA protections would extend to any “state action” and would apply to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization. In other words, the bill would have protected all citizens and the associations they form from undue burdens by the government on their religious liberty and from private lawsuits that would have the same effect.

Kirsten Powers jumped into the fray with a USA Today column misleadingly titled “Arizona Latest to Attack Gay Rights.” She warned that the law “would result in nothing less than chaos,” even though the federal government has operated under the same rules for twenty years and Arizona had had similar protections since 1999. A bipartisan group of law professors set the record straight in a letter to Governor Jan Brewer:

The bill has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics …

We should not punish people for practicing their religion unless we have a very good reason. Arizona has had a RFRA for nearly fifteen years now; the federal government has had one since 1993; and RFRA’s standard was the constitutional standard for the entire country from 1963 to 1990 …

[The proposed law] would amend the Arizona RFRA to address two ambiguities that have been the subject of litigation under other RFRA’s. It would provide that people are covered when state or local government requires them to violate their religion in the conduct of their businesses, and it would provide that people are covered when sued by a private citizen invoking state or local law to demand that they violate their religion.

The rhetoric about giving bigots a license not to serve gays and lesbians was simply nonsensical. Indeed, religious liberty claims in connection with same-sex marriage have never been about turning away certain persons or groups, but about not endorsing certain actions or ceremonies.

But the lies worked, and Governor Brewer, a Republican, vetoed the bill. Among those applying pressure were Arizona’s two Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, as well as Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney [and State Senator Bob Worsley], showing that both political parties are susceptible to abandoning principle once the media dial up the heat. Or big business. National Football League officials expressed concern about holding the Super Bowl in Arizona, as scheduled, should the religious liberty bill be enacted.

The scholar’s letter flew right over the head of the frightened governor, who vetoed the bill and got the rabid radicals off her back.

ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT OR A CHRISTIAN?

DEMOCRAT CHRISTIAN
2012 DNC Convention voice vote preference to leave “God” out of platform Matthew 10:32-33 — Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
You have a legal right to kill your unborn child. You have an obligation to fund Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars. You have an obligation to fund abortion with your tax dollars, and will be punished if you refuse. Jeremiah 1:4-5 — The word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Genesis 1:26-27 — Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Genesis 9: 5-6 — And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

Proverbs 6: 16-19 — There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
Deuteronomy 5:17 — You shall not murder.

Deuteronomy 30:19 — This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

You have a legal right to marry a person of the same gender. Government should pay for sex changes. Children should experiment sexually. Genesis 5:2 — He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created.

Matthew 19:5 — For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

Your rights come from government. Galatians 5:1 — It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Animals and the earth are of greater value than human beings. Genesis 1:26 — Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Man, animals, birds and plants evolved from a lower order, by accident. Genesis 1:21 — So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

Genesis 1:25 — God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Human beings make their own morality. Romans 1:22 — Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Jeremiah 10:14 — Everyone is senseless and without knowledge; every goldsmith is shamed by his idols. The images he makes are a fraud; they have no breath in them.

You are not encouraged to work. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 — For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve … But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:15

EPA to Defy Judge

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnJudge Ralph Erickson of the District Court for the District of North Dakota granted plaintiffs an injunction against the Environmental Protection Agency’s implementation of new navigable waterways regulations that were set for immediate enforcement. The EPA’s new regulations would have extended its authority over every body of water within the United States including rain runoff, temporary puddles, and spillage from yard sprinklers and driveways where home owners wash their vehicles.

The Judge observed that “it seems extremely improbable that the proposed EPA authority could conceivably apply to the so-called ‘navigable waterways’ described. As such, the 13 states suing the EPA would appear likely to win based on the merits of the case. An injunction pending the outcome of their suit is the best means for limiting the damages that taxpayers will be forced to pay if the regulations are permitted to go forward.”

EPA Press Secretary Melissa Harrison said the Agency “will go forward with implementation in the 44 states that are not covered by Erickson’s decision. The Administration disagrees with the presumption that the plaintiffs will win their suit.” As evidence, Harrison cited Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia’s rejection of a plea for an injunction in a suit filed by 11 other states.

What we have here is one judge attempting to impede a policy decreed by the leader of the free world,” she asserted. “Surely, the scales of justice will tip toward the greater weight represented by President Obama and the majority of judges who have accepted his rule. I mean, is there really any doubt that the US Supreme Court will eventually uphold this regulation? They’ve upheld every other major policy innovation he’s backed.”

Clinton Likens Planned Parenthood Critics to Terrorists

Seeking to divert attention from her admittedly unwise and likely illegal handling of classified material through her unsecured private email account, Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton sought to draw a parallel between advocates of defunding Planned Parenthood and Islamic terrorists.

Both groups relegate women to second class status,” Clinton claimed. “Both deny women the right to control their reproductive heath. Both would force women to be vessels for carrying unwanted children into the world. Both espouse out-of-date ideas about how the world should work.”

GOP presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla) characterized Clinton’s claims “as twisted and malevolent an inversion of morality as we are likely to see from a purportedly sane person. Islamic terrorists are cutting off the heads of those who oppose their barbarism. Planned Parenthood is cutting off the heads of children and selling them as raw material for medical research. Lumping those who want to stop taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood’s diabolical profiteering from the murder and dismemberment of innocent babies with Islamic murderers is as evil a slander as any ever perpetrated by the Nazis.”

Unfazed by Rubio’s counter, Clinton pointed out that “all of the babies aborted are unwanted. Planned Parenthood is merely aiding both the women who don’t want them and the babies themselves to avoid a life of burdens and suffering. Defraying some of the costs of this noble endeavor by recovering and selling parts that otherwise would simply be trashed helps reduce the amount of public funds we must appropriate for the organization to carry on this vital work.”

In related news, Planned Parenthood announced that a study it commissioned exonerated the organization from all charges of wrongdoing related to the videos revealing some of its chief officials discussing the sale of baby parts. “In none of these videos do we see any money changing hands,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said. “What we see is the Center for Medical Progress getting Planned Parenthood personnel drunk and eliciting giggling boasts about some of the humorous aspects of the business. While some might find such behavior distasteful, both our attorneys and representatives from the US Attorney General’s office have assured me that it is not criminal.”

Boehner Warns GOP Voters Against Cruz

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) warned voters against falling for GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz’s “siren song of feel-good, but politically unviable policy prescriptions.” Boehner’s remarks came at a Colorado fund-raising event.

Securing the border, defunding Planned Parenthood, killing the deal with Iran may sound good to unsophisticated ears, but they aren’t going to go anywhere,” Boehner told wealthy donors. “President Obama is going to block all of these notions. If we follow Cruz we get nothing. If we go along with the President we stand a chance of getting a piece of the action.”

The “piece of the action” Boehner is so keen to hold onto includes “ensuring that important Republican constituencies get a share of government spending thrown their way. The federal government buys lots of stuff. Seeing that it buys some of this stuff from our donors is our responsibility Sacrificing this potential cash flow for the sake of futile challenges to the President’s agenda is foolish. Cruz is a jackass for pushing them.”

Administration Makes End Run Around 2nd Amendment

In a move said to side-step Constitutional impediments to reasonable gun control, US Secretary of State John Kerry signed on to a UN agreement establishing an international gun registry and controls over the sale and transport of “small arms.”

Every sensible effort to restrict access to guns in the United States has been blocked by court rulings citing the Second Amendment’s ‘right to bear arms,’” Kerry complained. “Well, the US Constitution doesn’t apply to the UN. It is not fettered by the kind of out-of-date notions that stymie policy in this country.”

While the gun extremists at the NRA may not be satisfied, the agreement will allow individuals to own and use guns for legitimate purposes,” Kerry reassured. “Duck hunters can keep their shot guns. Elk hunters can keep their rifles. Professional bodyguards can keep their pistols. But the availability of access to firearms for use in domestic murders or by self-styled militias and vigilantes will be sharply curtailed.”

Kerry dismissed possible Senate opposition as “a non-issue. The Senate only has jurisdiction over treaties. This is not a treaty. It is an agreement among sovereigns. President Obama, as the sovereign of the United States has the absolute right to make this agreement and commit this country to abide by its provisions.”

Congresswoman Calls Fetal Parts Sales Humane and Life-Saving

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla) waded into the Planned Parenthood controversy and insisted that carving up the unborn for spare parts is both “humane and life-saving.”

First of all, what could be more humane than putting these unwanted creatures out of their misery?” the Congresswoman wondered. Saying that “I doubt that fetuses could feel pain, but even if they could the momentary pain of a medical instrument slicing the spinal cord has got to be far less painful than a lifetime of poverty and abuse as an unwanted child.”

Second, given that the law grants a woman the unrestricted right to terminate her pregnancy, doesn’t it make sense to try to salvage the residue?” Wasserman-Schultz asked. “I have heard that a company in California transplants salvaged fetal kidneys and implants them in rats where they can be grown and later used as a transplant for someone. Those heaping criticism on Planned Parenthood never mention this life-saving repurposing of recovered biological material.”

In related news, Planned Parenthood is suing the State of Louisiana for terminating its taxpayer-funded subsidies. Planned Parenthood official Cecile Richards called the State’s action “an illegal usurpation of President Obama’s authority to determine how government funds are to be used. The federal government gives Louisiana money earmarked for Planned Parenthood. The State has no right to refuse and return it to taxpayers.”

Obama Accuses Jeter of Cheating

President Barack Obama leveled cheating charges against former Yankee great Derek Jeter as the athlete easily beat him in a round of golf.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest alleged that “the president’s prowess has been borne out in hundreds of rounds over the past six years where he has gone undefeated against every prior opponent. How likely is it that Jeter would be the only person to win against him?”

Earnest brushed aside the possibility that a skilled professional athlete of Jeter’s caliber might have genuinely been a better golfer. “Let me point out that the president has more hours of golf under his belt than Mr. Jeter has,” Earnest argued. “Mr. Jeter was a baseball player. Any contention that skills that might have worked for him in that sport could somehow translate into golf skills sufficient to best the President seems dubious.”

Jeb Slams Asian Immigration

Hectored by Latino illegal immigrants for using the term “anchor baby,” GOP presidential candidate former Florida governor Jeb Bush contended that he was referring to Asian immigrants.

China and India are the real threat,” Bush maintained. “There are over a billion of each of them. That’s enough to totally overwhelm the 300 million Americans living in this country. There are only 125 million Mexicans. Even if every one of them migrated to the United States we’d still outnumber them by a wide margin.”

The candidate went on to outline what he called “a strong plan to interdict illegal Asian immigration using the vast size of the Pacific Ocean as our first line of defense. Unlike Mexicans they can’t simply walk into this country unless they go to Mexico first. But I will work with the government of Mexico on a joint operation to prevent Asians from using this route. Those flying or sailing to the United States will, of course, be intercepted at the airports and seaports.”

Bush hastened to remind reporters that “so far I’m the only candidate with a plan targeting this threat. Asians are worse because they come here to take our high-paying jobs. Most of the Mexicans who come here take jobs mowing lawns and cleaning homes—saving many middle class families from having to do these chores.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

Dark Money

By The Goldwater Institute

The proponents of mandatory reporting of private civic activities have won a major marketing victory by the widespread use of the phrase, “dark money.”  As one commentator put it, “Dark money.  The name itself carries ominous undertones, undertones that critics of this relatively new campaign-finance phenomenon claim reflect a genuine threat to democracy.”[x]  But the term is misleading.  “Dark money” would be more aptly referred to by what those who find free speech objectionable actually support – mandated government disclosure.  The use of such terms is intended to cast suspicion on those who contribute to various civic causes so the debate revolves around ad hominem attacks rather than engaging on the issues.

So, what is “dark money”?  It conjures images of shady political operatives greasing the palms of politicians in dark, smoked-filled rooms.  But does it also apply to traditional political activities, like you and your neighbor contributing your time and money to civic and social activities that you support?  And is it really a threat to democracy, or are those who seek to silence the voice of opposition and limit speech the real threats?

“Dark money” generally refers to funds spent for political activities by businesses, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals who are not required by law to disclose the identities of their donors.  Depending on where supporters of government disclosure draw the inherently arbitrary line, dark money could refer to donations made to the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) or to your local church or soup kitchen.

As a general matter, all spending that calls for the election or defeat of a political candidate or constitutes “electioneering communications” involves some level of disclosure to the government.  In fact, there are more disclosure obligations on the books today than at any other time in our nation’s history.[xi]  Nevertheless, some supporters of government disclosure claim that current laws do not go far enough.  They assert that certain charitable and social welfare organizations, including those organized under § 501(c) of the federal tax code, should be forced to disclose the identities of their individual donors when those organizations engage in political activity, even if that is not their primary function.[xii]

Those calling for the elimination of “dark money” are thus attempting to dramatically extend the reach of government-mandated disclosure to a wide variety of organizations, activities, and communications.

Advocates for expanded disclosure call for such dramatic and far-reaching regulations despite the fact that “dark money” is not a pervasive element in American politics. Some government disclosure advocates claim that so-called “dark money” expenditures constitute a significant portion of political spending in the United States.[xiii]  But the characterization is inaccurate.  In the 2014 election cycle, the Federal Elections Commission reported approximately $5.9 billion in total spending on federal elections.[xiv]  Of that $5.9 billion, roughly $173 million came from groups that are not required by law to disclose donors.[xv]  This represents a mere 2.9 percent of all spending on federal elections – hardly a significant portion.  In fact, this figure represents a decline from the 2012 election cycle, where such expenditures amounted to 4.4 percent of spending on federal races.[xvi]  As the Center for Competitive Politics observed from the 2012 election cycle, “Nearly all of the organizations that financed such independent expenditures . . . were well-known entities, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Rifle Association, Planned Parenthood, the National Association of Realtors, the National Federation of Independent Business, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Humane Society.”[xvii]  As a result, there is no secret as to what causes and issues such groups support.

Under existing campaign finance laws, the identities of these groups must be revealed when making direct contributions to candidates or political parties or engaging in other electioneering communications.  Additionally, donor identities must be disclosed when they specifically earmark their donations to nonprofit organizations to be used for electioneering communications.  Those types of donations can hardly be characterized as “dark money” in need of further regulation when under existing disclosure rules, anyone can see that the NRA contributed to Candidate X and Planned Parenthood contributed to Candidate Y.  The positions of those organizations are well known.  Characterizing those expenditures as “dark money” is, therefore, disingenuous.  But forcing further disclosure of donor identities is at best unnecessary, as donors may contribute to organizations to support the overall mission rather than any specific political candidate.  Their donations are intended to support certain issues, not politicians.

Claims that “dark money” is distorting American politics are even more tenuous when leveled at 501(c)(3)s, considering these nonprofit organizations are prohibited from participating in any partisan political activity.

Casino Gambling in Arizona Claims More Victims

Gambling and casinos have caused a lot of problems in Arizona and every other state where they are legal. Many have succumbed to gambling addiction, stolen from their employers and broken up their families and marriages. The sad story that follows isn’t the first in Arizona and it won’t be the last — not as long as we have legalized gambling. Some say, “oh but the money builds roads and schools.” The bottom line? It’s ill-gotten gain off the backs of shattered lives and broken families. This is a dark day for a culture in decline.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced the sentencing of Larry Dahl, a former Phoenix attorney. Dahl was sentenced to 3.25 years in prison and seven years supervised probation after defrauding his former clients of $2,940,439.

“The defendant stole millions of dollars from his clients to fuel a gambling addiction,” said Attorney General Mark Brnovich. “Dahl was in a position of trust and he abused that trust. The Attorney General’s Office takes these cases very seriously.”

In addition to his prison sentence, the Honorable Jay Adleman ordered Dahl to pay $2,940,439 to the former clients he defrauded. In 2013, Dahl was indicted on 20 felony counts accused of embezzling money from client funds for nearly 5 years, from January 2001 to January 2005. Over that time period, Dahl gambled the $2,940,439 he had stolen at various casinos and lost the entire sum.

Dahl embezzled client funds directly from their interest-bearing money market accounts by writing checks payable to himself. To perpetuate this scheme, Dahl frequently transferred money between 46 client money market accounts to create the illusion of accurate individual account balances.

On June 25, 2015, Dahl pled guilty to three felony offenses: Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices, Money Laundering and Theft.

Mr. Dahl was disbarred in 2006.

Assistant Attorney General Brett Harames prosecuted this case.

Arizona Congressional Democrats Accepted Money from Big Abortion’s King — Planned Parenthood

During the 2014 election cycle, four Democrats accepted campaign cash from Planned Parenthood — the notorious abortion factory under intense national scrutiny for illegal sales of baby parts and alleged fraud.

Current Congressmen Ann Kirkpatrick, Kyrsten Sinema, Raul Grijalva and former Congressman Ron Barber all accepted money from Planned Parenthood last year.

Kirkpatrick received $10,850, the second-highest total of any Democrat House candidate.

Sinema ranked fourth among House Democrats with $10,300 received from Planned Parenthood.

Incumbent Ron Barber, who lost to conservative Martha McSally, held out his hand for $5,566 in Planned Parenthood cash.

And Cong. Grijalva, also head of the largest socialist organization in Congress, grabbed $1,000 from Planned Parenthood.

Concerned Americans are calling for criminal investigations of Planned Parenthood for selling baby parts.

Several states and Congress are debating de-funding Planned Parenthood, a profit-driven abortion factory that receives more than half a billion tax dollars annually.

Several state audits have revealed that Planned Parenthood makes a regular habit of improperly billing the government for services and products neither requested nor received by citizens.

The late racist Margaret Sanger was instrumental in starting up Planned Parenthood. And a disproportionate number of PP abortion mills are located in minority neighborhoods in Arizona and nationally.

As if that isn’t enough: Planned Parenthood failed to report the rapes of underage girls in Tempe and Colorado, allowing the abusers to continue victimizing young girls. Planned Parenthood is required by law to report the pregnancies of underage girls to legal authorities, but refused to do so in order to maximize profits.

DHS Documents Show 260 Criminal Illegal Aliens Criminals Released in Arizona in Just Three Weeks

Judicial Watch announced it obtained records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revealing that nearly 260 illegal alien criminals, including 40 incarcerated for violent crimes, were released from Arizona detention facilities during the last week of February and the first two weeks of March 2013. After first denying that the mass release had taken place, the Obama administration claimed the releases were due to the anticipated sequestration budget cuts. The newly obtained records were uncovered because of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Edward Tuffly, a Tucson, AZ, resident (Edward “Bud” Tuffly v. U. S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 2:15-cv-00067)).

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit for Mr. Tuffly in January 2015 after DHS failed to respond to his November 10, 2014, FOIA request of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seeking the following information:

  • Records sufficient to identify all ICE detainees released in late February or early March 2013 from the following detention facilities due to alleged fiscal or budget uncertainty: (a) Central Arizona Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona: (b) Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona; (c) Florence Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona; (d) Florence SPC in Florence, Arizona; and (e) Pinal County Adult Detention Center in Florence, Arizona.
  • For each detainee identified in response to Request No.1, the I-213 form(s) documenting the detainee’s arrest.
  • For each detainee identified in response to Request No.1, records sufficient to identify: (a) the date the detainee was released; (b) the facility from which the detainee was released; (c) the detainee’s criminal history or criminal charges at the time of release; (d) methods of supervision to which the detainee was subjected; and (e) whether the detainee appeared for subsequent removal or other proceedings and/or was removed from the United States.

The date range for the requested records was February 22 through March 15, 2013. This was the period during which DHS released more than 2000 illegal aliens nationwide, later claiming the release was “solely for budgetary reasons,” though none of the anticipated sequestration budget cuts had yet taken place.

Among the nearly 260 illegal aliens released from five Arizona correction facilities at the time were nearly 40 violent criminals who had been arrested for crimes including assault, domestic violence, weapons offenses, and battery. Nearly one in five had been arrested for drunk driving. The full list is below:

Traffic Offense:  57

Driving Under Influence Liquor: 55

Disorderly Conduct: 15

Failure to Appear: 14

Illegal Entry: 13

Assault: 9

Drug Trafficking: 9

Shoplifting: 8

Larceny: 8

Making False Report: 6

Drug Possession: 6

Weapons Offense: 6

Forgery: 5

Domestic Violence: 4

Trespassing: 4

Damage Property: 4

Prostitution: 4

Liquor: 3

Marijuana: 3

Damage Property—Private: 3

Probation Violation: 3

Liquor Possession: 2

Identity Theft: 2

Battery: 2

Contributing to Delinquency of Minor: 2

Commercial Sex: 2

Fraud—False Statement: 2

Fraud—Impersonating: 2

Public Order Crimes: 2

Violation of a Court Order: 2

Robbery—Street Gun: 2

Robbery: 2

Narcotics Equip—Possession: 2

Intimidation: 2

Morals—Decency Crimes:  1

Identity Theft: 1

Cruelty Toward Wife: 1

Smuggling: 1

Smuggling Aliens: 1

Fraud: 1

Licensing Offense: 1

Stolen Vehicle: 1

Licensing Violation: 1

Obstruct Criminal Investigation: 1

Firing Weapon: 1

Resisting Officer: 1

Burglary Tools—Possession: 1

Threat to Burn: 1

Receive Stolen Property: 1

Hit and Run: 1

Obstruct Police: 1

Possession of a Weapon: 1

The Obama administration is refusing to divulge the names of the released criminals, which prevents law enforcement from protecting the public or notifying victims. Local authorities in Arizona, such as Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, have tried unsuccessfully to obtain information about this and other criminal alien releases by the Obama administration.  In 2014, a Judicial Watch lawsuit forced the release of 76 pages of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) documents revealing that as of April 2014, ICE had released 165,900 convicted criminal aliens throughout the United States, including many convicted of such violent crimes as homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault.

Judicial Watch is a long-time national leader in advocating for the rule-of-law approach to illegal immigration.  This work includes exposing and challenging dangerous sanctuary policies in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Arizona, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and more.  For example, in 2011, as a result of Judicial Watch’s work, San Francisco was ordered to end its sanctuary policy that protected aliens arrested for certain drug offenses from being reported to ICE.

Judicial Watch also filed a lawsuit in Chicago challenging Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart’s refusal to honor ICE immigration detainers or cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in identifying deportable criminal aliens.  Cook County jails have released well over 1,000 criminal aliens sought by ICE in the 18 months prior the lawsuit’s filing in 2013.  The suit is now before the Illinois Supreme Court.

The lawsuit, Brian McCann v. Thomas J. Dart, is on behalf of lifetime Chicago resident Brian McCann, whose brother William “Denny” McCann, was run over and killed in June 2011 by an unlawfully present criminal alien who had just completed a two-year term of probation for a 2009 DUI conviction.  The alien, Saul Chavez, was charged with felony aggravated driving under the influence, but was released by the Sheriff from a Cook County jail in November 2011 despite an ICE immigration detainer.

“The Obama Administration is obsessed with supporting nationwide sanctuary and unlawful amnesty for illegal aliens – even illegal aliens who have committed violent crimes,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “These new documents show the Obama administration’s soft-on-crime approach to illegal alien crime is a clear and present danger to the safety of innocent Americans.”

America Reacts to Planned Parenthood’s Moral Depravity

LifeNews reports: Speaker John Boehner announced today that committees in the House of Representatives will take a look at the Planned Parenthood abortion business after a shocking new expose’ video that caught Planned Parenthood’s top doctor describing how the abortion business sells the body parts of aborted babies.

New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.

In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA’s Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.

PERSONAL REACTIONS

PATRICIA HEATON

Abortionist Deborah “Hannibal” Nucatola swills her chianti while talking about selling baby parts.

RUSH LIMBAUGH

But it’s just the sickest, it is the most evil, it is the most depraved thing that I have heard in a long while.  And I think precisely because it is sick and evil and depraved is why mainstream Drive-By Media outlets are not covering it.  Now, the Associated Press is, but the Associated Press has joined Planned Parenthood in the sickness and in the evil and in the depravity in the way they are attempting to report this.

CONGRESSWOMAN MARTHA ROBY

This is one of those moments that — as a nation and as a people — we have to ask ourselves, ‘Who are we? Are we really going to tolerate this inhumanity? Are we going to look the other way while babies are brutally killed and organs harvested for profit? The casual and callous way [the Planned Parenthood executive] details how babies can be killed in such a way that their tiny hearts, lungs and livers can be taken and sold for profit is simply horrifying.

CARLY FIORINA

This latest news is tragic and outrageous.

REV. DR. ALBERT MOHLER JR.

When the Allied forces liberated the concentration camps of the Nazi regime, General Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the ordinary German citizens of nearby towns and villages to walk through the camps and to see what they had allowed and facilitated. Eisenhower’s point was all too clear — you allowed this to happen, and you share the guilt.

So it is with all Americans. Planned Parenthood and the abortion industrial complex are funded with our tax dollars. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a racist openly committed to eugenics. Millions of unborn babies have died in its facilities. The group thrives because Americans allow it to thrive.

TONY PERKINS

We may never know the full extent of evil that goes on behind Planned Parenthood’s closed doors. But we know enough. In a world where killing is currency and empires are built on the backs of innocent children, maybe nothing should surprise us. And yet, it does — with every new story of the abortion industry’s inhumanity. … This morning, pro-lifers awoke to another scandal: the news that Planned Parenthood — the same organization President Obama routinely praises, speaks to, and fundraises for — is involved in a black market of body parts. The ghoulish details are the subject of an undercover video just released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), featuring a woman extremely high up in Planned Parenthood’s chain of command: Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola. … For an organization whose hands are already dirtied by sex trafficking, gender targeting, unsanitary clinic conditions, multi-million dollar fraud, and sexual abuse cover-ups — dismembering babies for sale is hardly the kind of retail business you want to hang a shingle over. And yet Americans continue to be unwilling investors in this taxpayer-funded Frankenstein. If this doesn’t persuade the government to act, I don’t know what will. It’s time for Congress to launch an immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood’s grisly side business. Pick up the phone and call your congressman (some of whom are already speaking out) and demand a full-scale inquiry on the President’s favorite “nonprofit.”

CONGRESSWOMAN DIANE BLACK

Planned Parenthood’s disregard for innocent human life is even worse than we imagined. As a nurse for more than 40 years, I am passionately pro-life but this latest discovery has taken us beyond the pro-life versus pro-abortion debate. This is about basic decency and humanity. Anyone who can watch this video and continue to justify taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood is simply defending the indefensible.

Overruling the Courts: How We End the Reign of Liberal Judges in 2016

By Andrew Thomas, former Maricopa County Attorney 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage confirms, once again, that conservative efforts to end liberal judicial activism on major issues have failed. On matters that determine our quality of life and culture-immigration, criminal justice, abortion, marriage-the left enjoys clear mastery of the courts, and has for the last fifty years. To end this tyranny, Congress must use its power under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over these issues. This will allow the states and the people to decide these matters, restoring self-government on the issues that matter most.

For the past half century, conservative political leaders have vowed to combat liberal judicial activism. These efforts, quite simply, have failed. Unelected liberal judges now effectively run America, making every ultimate policy decision-often in defiance of the will of the people.

Unchecked liberal court rulings have subverted the Constitution, wreaking havoc on our national sovereignty and such bedrock institutions as the family and religious freedom. On the issues that determine our quality of life and culture-immigration, criminal justice, abortion, marriage-the left enjoys clear mastery of the courts and is seeking to mop up and fully implement their social agenda. Except for occasional “crumbs from the master’s table,” conservatives no longer can win in court on the issues that matter most.

To reverse this destructive trend and restore self-government, two things must happen. First, Congress must use its power under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over these issues. Second, conservative leaders and organizations must work together and insist that candidates for president and Congress in 2016 take a clear position on whether they support stripping the federal courts of this jurisdiction. Otherwise, candidates will continue to mislead conservative voters with often self-serving promises and tactics that, for a half century, have failed to turn the tide.

These jurisdiction-stripping measures would ensure, at a minimum, certain states can become “Faith and Family Networks.” There, people of faith may live in relative freedom from harassment until the courts and other institutions can be properly reformed.

An American Tyranny: Why Our Government Is Election-Proof

Starting in the 1960s, liberal activists took over the federal courts and used them to assault and fundamentally change American society. Under the leadership of former California politician Earl Warren, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed on the nation sweeping liberal policies that lacked popular support. To accomplish this, the high court claimed it had discovered new constitutional “rights.” These “rights” were conferred on individuals hostile to the rule of law and traditional American values. They included criminals and prison inmates, illegal immigrants, flag-burners, and a motley group of liberal provocateurs at war with the social conventions that had protected civilization for millennia.

Converting the Supreme Court into what Justice Hugo Black called a “day-to-day constitutional convention,” activist justices remade the nation. They threw out state laws designed to stop illegal immigration, administer capital punishment, significantly limit or ban abortion, defend marriage, honor religious faith through governmental action, and protect the innocence of children from unrestrained “freedom of expression” in the mass media. These activist rulings, to paraphrase Justice Antonin Scalia, rewrote the “Constitution for a country I do not recognize.”

For example, thanks to federal court rulings, convicted murderers are allowed decades to appeal their sentences through state and, afterwards, federal courts. These delays effectively nullify capital punishment, which the American people support. The Supreme Court has invalidated state laws allowing juries to impose capital punishment on heinous criminals who, for example, rape children. Today, the death penalty is carried out only at the whim of judges, and is no longer an effective deterrent to murder or other grave crimes.

Likewise, the federal courts have knocked down state laws addressing the ongoing influx of illegal immigrants. Activist judges have overturned legislation which made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to enter a state. Other state laws targeting illegal immigration have met the same demise. This has happened even though the Framers of the Constitution expressly reserved for the states broad police powers allowing them to pass and enforce such laws-laws which defend the rule of law and basic American sovereignty.

Unelected federal judges, not elected officials, now have the final say on every national policy issue. This has made our government election-proof. Voting for president or members of Congress means little if federal judges, not elected officials, make the ultimate decisions on all public policies. As power has shifted to the federal courts, elections have become increasingly meaningless. Voter distrust of government has soared.

Moreover, the judiciary has become a firm bastion of liberalism. The courts have given America, for the past fifty years, a steady series of now-entrenched liberal court rulings. These have shattered the nation’s traditions, quality of life and culture. The courts steadfastly refuse to overturn these rulings. Except for occasional and very marginal victories, it is no longer possible for conservatives to win in court on the issues that matter most.

A Half Century of Failure

How did activist liberal judges accomplish this? Those who should have fought back against them did not. Failing to mount a successful counterattack were a succession of presidents and members of Congress-in particular, as a practical matter, the leaders of America’s conservative party, the Republican Party. Many of these leaders tried and meant well. Most, however, shunned the fight out of political self-interest. To avoid controversy and attacks from the liberal media and other allies of liberal judges, these leaders sacrificed the Constitution and self- government.

Misleading Campaign Promises and Ineffective Tactics

Every election cycle, Americans witness a disingenuous ritual. Republican candidates promise to fight the most recent batch of liberal court rulings with tactics proven, over the last fifty years, to be completely ineffective. The first stock promise: seeking to amend the Constitution. This is a political cop-out. The Framers deliberately made amending the Constitution an extremely difficult and unlikely process. This makes pledging to amend the Constitution a dodge, a high- sounding way to avoid seriously addressing activist court rulings.

Equally slippery is the second standard promise: passing more laws to challenge the offending rulings. New conservative laws, conservatives are told, will set up more cases and, eventually, victories in court. These laws are then litigated for many years, often a decade or longer. Any eventual gains from these cases are tardy and trifling. By then a whole new generation of Congressmen are in office, ready to try the same tactic before an often-forgetful conservative electorate. This political promise, in short, is the hackneyed political equivalent of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown again and again.

Despite decades of litigation, the core liberal court rulings remain untouched. For fifty years, federal judges have not reversed a single, major liberal precedent on a cultural issue. Conservative gains in court have been rare and extremely modest, while the left and its social agenda romp virtually unchallenged through the nation’s courthouses. Trumpeting these tiny and infrequent conservative “victories” are lawyers who earn income from these cases and allied politicians; their public declarations of victory often mislead conservatives into thinking they are winning the nation’s cultural battles when, in fact, they are being routed.

Finally, GOP presidential candidates offer the quadrennial chestnut of promising to appoint “strict-constructionist judges.” This tactic also has failed. The left makes confirmation of such candidates for judgeships a horrific and doubtful enterprise. Prospective judges who are honest and open enough to articulate right-of-center views prior to nomination are crucified by liberal media elites and pressure groups during the confirmation process. The savaging of the late Judge Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas were clarion events in this regard. Indeed, the left knows how and when to fight: Had Bork been confirmed instead of his replacement, Anthony Kennedy, America would be a very different country today.

Regardless, it is hard even to find potential conservative judges, no matter how diligently a president searches for them. Lawyers are overwhelmingly liberal. For this reason, the number of conservatives in this pool of potential judges is very small. Even when they can be found, attorneys with seemingly conservative credentials frequently “flip” after donning a black robe. To do otherwise requires them to withstand tremendous professional and personal pressures and enticement from liberal legal insiders, the media and fellow judges. Few are strong enough to do so.

“The Liberal Courts”

What Judge Robert Bork foresaw as the “political seduction of the law,” in a landmark book published when Barack Obama was a law student, has materialized. The left has thoroughly politicized the law and the courts. Conservatives cannot win there on the issues that matter most. Conservative leaders and voters must acknowledge this reality and act accordingly.

How did the left capture the courts? This takeover was inevitable once liberal activists took over academia. To be a lawyer, one must complete seven years of higher education, receiving both a bachelor’s degree and a juris doctor. This means undergoing seven years of indoctrination by committed liberal professors. Thirty years ago, the late Allan Bloom warned about the damaging effects of liberal bias in higher education. But this was a thorny problem to solve, and so it was ignored. Now, it has changed the country.

Liberal indoctrination in American higher education is well documented. Some 72 percent of college professors describe themselves as liberal. Only 15 percent call themselves conservative. Not surprisingly, a 2010 analysis by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute concluded that the more college degrees a person earns, the more liberal that person becomes. When Americans are asked, for instance, whether they believe public-school teachers should be allowed to lead a prayer in school, 57 percent of high-school graduates say yes. That number drops to 40 percent for college graduates, 30 percent for master’s degree holders, and only 17 percent for Ph.D.’s.

This dynamic is particularly stark in law school. Those who dissent from liberal positions during class discussions literally are hissed at and ridiculed. Professors tolerate and sometimes encourage this environment. The message is delivered. Few who graduate from law school are conservative.

The American Bar Association and other bar associations reflect and enforce these biases. Indeed, an attorney who publicly calls the judiciary politicized or liberal risks disbarment; ethical rules charge bar associations with targeting attorneys who, in their judgment, unfairly challenge the “integrity of the judiciary.” Lawyers who speak out also face professional ostracism and retaliation in more obvious ways, as the courts control the outcome of their cases and their livelihoods.

In short, conservatives must view the courts as they do the media. Both institutions have become firmly liberal. Occasional “crumbs” from either institution do not alter this reality. Conservatives should use the phrase “liberal courts” as frequently and reliably as they say “liberal media,” for the terms are equally true.

Indeed, there is an incestuous relationship between the liberal courts and the liberal media. Through generous rulings, the courts have all but shielded the media from libel suits. The media reciprocate by giving the courts “air cover,” reflexively defending them from conservative critiques by pounding those who dare articulate them. Hollywood benefits financially from liberal court rulings, and so leaders of the motion-picture industry do their part, as well. Movie producers uniformly offer films that depict judges as wise, fair and benevolent.

Reclaiming Self-Government

Congress has the power to end this tragic and ruinous state of affairs. That power resides in Article III of the Constitution.

Article III of the Constitution specifies that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only over disputes between states and cases in which foreign diplomats are a party. On any other issue, Congress can limit or eliminate entirely the jurisdiction of the high court and the other federal courts. In other words, the people’s elected representatives in Congress can roll back judicial abuses through a simple majority vote of both houses.

Article III, section 2 provides the Supreme Court “shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” This language expressly allows Congress to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts to uphold the will of the people.

Congress has done this in the past, though not on the controversial cultural issues where action is urgently needed today. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld past congressional restrictions of its jurisdiction. Indeed, the language of Article III is so clear and unambiguous that the high court has been obliged to concede such limitations despite its obvious conflict of interest in allowing its own powers to be curbed.

In a string of rulings going back to right after the Civil War, the high court has acknowledged Congress holds this power under Article III. One justice recognizing this constitutional reality was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose opinions first asserted the Supreme Court’s right to strike down laws it deemed unconstitutional. Marshall observed that all federal judicial powers “are limited and regulated” by Congress.

In the Federalist Papers, written to persuade the earliest Americans to adopt the new Constitution, Alexander Hamilton echoed this understanding. He stated the courts were designed to be the “least dangerous” and “weakest” branch of government. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be “confined to two classes, and those of a nature rarely to occur.” Likewise, federal appellate jurisdiction would exist only “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make” (Hamilton’s emphasis). There would never be a “superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power,” meaning the courts could not overrule Congress and the people. Indeed, Hamilton noted Congress could impeach activist judges who engaged in “deliberate usurpation on the authority of the legislature.” Leading legal scholars and other observers have quoted Hamilton and other Framers in upholding Congress’s power to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Congress should restrict jurisdiction in those areas of public policy where federal judges have engaged in repeated, substantial abuses of power to thwart the will of the people. Specifically, Congress should pass an act restricting federal-court jurisdiction so that henceforth, each state may:

  • Make it a crime, prosecutable under state law, for an illegal immigrant to enter the state;
  • Ban same-sex marriages and protect related religious freedom;
  • Allow juries to impose the death penalty on criminals as determined by state law, and impose a two-year time limit for federal courts to rule on federal appeals of state capital cases; and
  • Fully regulate or end abortion as the people of the state or their elected representatives deem fit.

This “Empower the States Act” will restore to the states and the people their rightful authority to govern themselves on key areas of public policy.

Returning these matters to the states is not a perfect solution. Because of the deep intellectual rot in the judiciary, many state courts are liberal. Yet state judges are closer to the people and more accountable because many are elected. Also, many state constitutions have a right of referendum, allowing the people to vote directly on these matters.

Conclusion: Empowering the States

In 2016, conservative voters cannot settle for the same evasions and self-serving rhetoric offered by presidential and congressional candidates for the past half century. They must insist that candidates agree explicitly that if elected, they will act to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over these matters and end the reign of liberal judges. Fifty years of failure have proven nothing else will work.

To force candidates to address these issues forthrightly, conservative leaders, activists and voters must be dogged and focused. Republican politicians in particular routinely court conservative voters and rely upon them at election time, but try to avoid tackling these issues. They want to be spared the “air war” that erupts in the liberal media when conservative elected officials address a major social issue. As a result, Republican leaders typically settle for what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich memorably called “managing the decline” of the nation. This is a generous and artful way of accusing such leaders of political cowardice and dereliction of duty, terms that are just as true and fair.

Conservatives must demand more. The hour is very late.

The “Empower the States Act” will create “Faith and Family Networks,” states and clusters of like-minded states where people of faith can live without harassment. This is a realistic stopgap measure to protect these basic liberties until the courts and other institutions can be properly reformed.

To achieve this, conservatives cannot allow candidates to change the subject, talking instead of such easy and shopworn fare as cutting taxes or curbing the bureaucracy. Many news items compete for the voters’ attention. Yet the left shrewdly remains focused on controlling the courts because they know this is their source of ultimate power. In contrast, by losing such focus, conservatives have seen their civilization wrecked by liberal activist judges.

Only by pinning down candidates and holding them to their word on these issues can Americans realistically hope to end the left’s stranglehold on the courts. In the process, the electorate will have taken the surest path to a brighter national future.

Notes

Justice Black:  Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965)(Black, J., dissenting).

Justice Scalia:  United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996)(Scalia, J., dissenting).

Liberal court rulings:  E.g., Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)(disallowing state law barring illegal immigrants from entering state); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966) (expanding the rights of criminals and inmates); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992)(right to abortion); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963)(forbidding public schools from conducting prayer or Bible readings);Obergefell v. Hodges, Citation Pending (2015)(right to same-sex marriage).

Bork:  Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: Free Press, 1990).

Bloom:  Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987).

Liberal indoctrination in higher education:  Intercollegiate Studies Institute, “The Shaping of the American Mind,” February 2010.

Law school climate:  Andrew Peyton Thomas, The People v. Harvard Law: How America’s Oldest Law School Turned Its Back on Free Speech (San Francisco: Encounter, 2005), pp. 24-26.

Supreme Court and appellate rulings acknowledging Congress’ power to restrict  jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2:  Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869)(1867 Act); Lauf v. E.G. Skinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938)(Norris-LaGuardia Act); Felker v. Turpin, 517 U.S. 651 (1996)(Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act)); Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of the United States, 329 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2003)(Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act); Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002)(Prison Litigation Reform Act).  In Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), the Supreme Court, in a narrowly written decision, invalidated a federal restriction on its jurisdiction over enemy combatants held in Guantanamo, Cuba.

Chief Justice Marshall:  Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. (6 Crach.) 307 (1810).

Hamilton:  Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Nos. 78 and 81 (available online athttp://constitution.org).

Intellectual support for jurisdiction-stripping measures:  E.g., Raoul Berger, Death Penalties: The Supreme Court’s Obstacle Course (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1982); R. Randall Bridwell and William J. Quirk,Judicial Dictatorship (Rutgers: Transaction, 1995); Patrick J. Buchanan, “Our Judicial Dictatorship,” Buchanan.org, October 10, 2014; Phyllis Schlafly, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How To Stop It(Dallas: Spence, 2004).

Appendix – Proposed Legislation

114th Congress

1st Session

H.R. ____________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving illegal immigration, marriage, capital punishment and abortion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the “Empower the States Act of 2015.”

SEC. 2.   LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION

(a)  In General – Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“Section 1632.  Limitation on jurisdiction

No court created by an Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, state laws that:  prohibit illegal aliens, as defined by Federal immigration laws, from entering a state; pertain to any type of marriage; determine what criminal conduct makes a criminal offender eligible for capital punishment; set a time limit, for a period of two years or more, for Federal appeal and review of state death-penalty cases; or regulate or prohibit abortion”.

(b) Conforming Amendment – The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“1632.  Limitation on jurisdiction”.