• Your cart is currently empty.
Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective > General > By its latest (in)actions, the Supreme Court seems to be waiting for a wise Latina justice

By its latest (in)actions, the Supreme Court seems to be waiting for a wise Latina justice

LatinaLista — The news yesterday that the Supreme Court justices had refused to hear a case that challenged the federal government’s assertion that it could supersede state and local laws to build the fence between Mexico and the U.S. was a disappointing decision for all the groups who have been tirelessly fighting the completion of the border fence.

U.S. Supreme Court
If there is one silver lining to this black cloud it’s that the Obama administration doesn’t appear to share the same gusto in disregarding people’s feelings about the fence and the local environment and personal properties.
Though there are many in Congress who still equate the border fence with securing the United States, that logic is more equitable to weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq than having to do with the reality of the border situation.
According to news accounts, the Border Patrol is reporting its third year of declining numbers of apprehensions of undocumented immigrants at the border and because of an increase in customs inspections record seizures of guns and cash heading south have been confiscated to prevent the real threat to this country — drug cartels — from gaining anymore power than what they already have.
Yet, it would have been nice to have the highest court in the land deal with the issue of just how much power any one administration can have when it comes to waiving federal laws (36 in this case) to expedite a political agenda.
It seems the question was too hard for our current roster of justices.


Had it been reported that the Supreme Court justices had taken one look at the lawsuit County of El Paso, Texas v Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security and decided that there was no merit to the case and instantly ruled as such, it would have been a decision easier to understand.
But that’s not what happened.
According to the news site The Hill, the justices met several times to discuss this case.

The justices themselves took a considerable amount of time in mulling the case. The subject was brought up in conference eight times, most recently last Thursday, before justices voted not to accept the case.

Strange but it’s the second time that the justices have declined to hear challenges to the border fence. In fact, when it comes to anything remotely touching on immigration reform or border security, the justices are not implementing the kind of interpretation to the laws that they should — and what the people need to hear.
While the justices decided that ruling on the border fence was not worthy of their time, they saw no problem with accepting a case regarding “examining the constitutional limits on states when it comes to restoring storm-eroded beaches.”
Obviously, deciding just how much responsibility rests with a party in restoring beaches eroded by Mother Nature versus reinstating federal laws eroded by government action is an easier case to solve and much less politically radioactive.
The Court’s inaction can be interpreted as evading any kind of issue dealing, however remotely, with immigration reform and/or not being able to come to a consensus of just how much power any one administration can have when it comes to disregarding state and local laws and people’s property rights to push through political policy.
I would say this court needs a wise Latina judge who is not afraid to make a decision that impacts people’s lives and explains how government bully tactics are for the good of the people.

Related posts

Comment(19)

  • Grandma
    June 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    “I would say this court needs a wise Latina judge”
    Wister than a white man? Is that what you’re saying?

  • cookie
    June 16, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    Uh, having a secure border should include a physical barrier to assist the Border Patrol. Not having a secure border impacts 300 million lives in this country. Now should we be more concerned with a handful of citizen’s selfish objections to a well needed security measure or the entire citizenry of this country’s safety instead? Most loyal and patriotic Americans would choose the latter.

  • Karen
    June 17, 2009 at 3:16 am

    I don’t think a border fence is needed for national security reasons, but how are we supposed to stop illegal immigration? I know that fewer people are crossing the border now because of the bad economy, but what happens when the economy improves? I don’t want to be mean, but in my state we can’t handle any more immigrants. We are at full capacity. At some point, Mexicans have to fix their own country.

  • Horace
    June 17, 2009 at 11:58 am

    If you don’t think a fence of some kind, be it physical or virtual, is necessary, think of what would happen the first time a terrorist enters thru our southern border through the desert. The political repercussions and the actions taken by Congress would make today’s fence brouhaha seem insignificant. We already have terrorist gang members and common criminals coming across. Isn’t that enough justification for such measures?

  • cookie
    June 17, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    Karen, you need to check with the Border Patrol for the true facts of how a physical barrier is a necessary part of border security and how it is helping them rather than you just stating your opinon of “I don’t think it helps”. A mere 18-20 miles of double fencing on the San Deigo border was a huge deterrant.
    I have already stated in here that mandating e-verify would put a huge dent in illegal immigration. Another deterrant would be to remove any and all incentives to come here such as taxpayer benefits and the birthright citizenship fiasco.
    Well, we finally agree that we are full up with “illegal” immigrants and that Mexicans need to fix their own country.

  • Texan123
    June 17, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    You are assuming that a Hispanic could have swayed the other court members to a different decision. Maybe, maybe not.

  • hissy
    June 18, 2009 at 10:02 am

    Cookie…you and me BOTH!! E-verify works. No need to round up herds of people…just use e-verify and they will stop coming. Refuse welfare and anchor babies and they will go home. They did an IRS “raid” at Overhill Foods in L.A.(they make airline food and Jenny Craig I believe) 25% of them were fired because of fake or no SS#. They had a MONTH to straighten out thier papers.

  • Karen
    June 18, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    Re: “I have already stated in here that mandating e-verify would put a huge dent in illegal immigration. Another deterrant would be to remove any and all incentives to come here such as taxpayer benefits and the birthright citizenship fiasco.”
    If you want to stop illegal immigration then eliminate NAFTA!!! That’s why they have to come here and risk their lives in search of work.
    1) E-Verify is owned by a private company with a government contract. They have made mistakes in some cases and Americans with Spanish surnames have been told that they are ineligible to work. The government should check the status, not give all of our information to some private company that makes mistakes.
    2) If you’re born in America, you’re an American. We don’t inherit the legal status of our parents. The last time we did that was during slavery. If your mother was a slave, then so were you.
    The 14th Amendment will not be overturned because corprations are greedy and because people are racist.

  • Horace
    June 18, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    “………….the justices are not implementing the kind of interpretation to the laws that they should — and what the people need to hear.”
    This is indicative of the total lack of comprehension you have of the purpose of the Constitution of the U.S., and the way jurist prudence is practiced by the Supreme Nine. Did you think that the Supreme Nine would elect to give primacy to flora and fauna over the national security of the U.S.?
    Long before we had environmental laws our government was primarily concerned with the integrity of our borders and our sovereignty. It was evident then, as it is now, that the Constitution is first and foremost concerned with the welfare of the people, not the local wildlife. The strongest evidence of this is that wildlife isn’t protected by the Bill of Rights. Every environmental law is subject to the will of Congress, while the Bill of Rights is subject to ammendment, a deliberately laborious process that requires the involvement of people at state level. If you disagree, then I challenge you to find anything in that document that refers to wildlife preservation. If our judiciary has any constituency, it is the people of this country first. This is evident to everyone except those who would use wildlife preservation as a tool to maintain open borders in their own ethnocentric political goals to change the ethnic make up of this country.
    All the Supreme Nine did was to acknowledge that people are to be afforded protection of the law over animals and plants. Marisa, even you might agree with this if you weren’t blinded by your own personal agenda. You treat our Supreme Nine as though they were an elected body, much like Congress, subject to following the fad of the day. You have no stick to beat them with, so you whine when you can’t have your way.
    Why not a wise Korean, or a wise Italian? Like Grandma, all I ask of my Supreme Nine is that they are fair judges, no matter their ethnicity or race. Texan123 is right, if Latinos are only vote from their ethnic point of view, perhaps a Latino member of the Supreme Nine should recuse him/herself from all cases except those involving Latino supplicants. I could say that a Latino could never understand my needs as an Irish/Lithuanian-American. What right should a Latino have to judge my case, as by your measure, one could never qualify as one has never walked in my shoes? This argument concerning the “wise Latina” is nonsense and destructive to national unity.

  • Karen
    June 18, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    Re: “think of what would happen the first time a terrorist enters thru our southern border through the desert.”
    OH BROTHER. Anti-Mexican people are so desperate to link terrorism to poor people crossing the border in search of work.

  • cookie
    June 19, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    Karen, the terrorists aren’t the Mexicans they are known as OTM’s (other than Mexicans) from known terrorist countries. They have been known to sneak right in along with the Mexicans. It was reported by the FBI a few years ago. If Mexicans can sneak thru our borders what makes you think that those from other countries can’t?
    No one is anti-Mexican but we are anti-illegal alien whether they be Mexican or otherwise. Why do you pro-illegals demonize you fellow Americans in this way and not tell the truth?

  • cookie
    June 19, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    Karen, NAFTA was signed by both the U.S. and Mexico. If it isn’t working why don’t you ask Mexico to end it? You and yours try to blame this entire illegal immigration mess on NAFTA when it just isn’t so.
    E-verify is over 99% accurate. Employees would be given ample time to straighten out any discrepancies in regards to their names and SS numbers. You and yours don’t want it though because it will rid this country of most ilegal aliens and deter many more from coming. Just admit it!
    Most countries disallow instant citizenship to a newborn unless at least on parent is a citizen. The birthright citizenship act is not being correctly interpreted as the writers of it intended. It can easily be corrected with no new amendment needed.

  • James
    June 19, 2009 at 9:36 pm

    Karen…..”OH BROTHER. Anti-Mexican people are so desperate to link terrorism to poor people crossing the border in search of work.”
    Really, Karen, just coming here to work? Apparently some come for other reasons, but we should just ignore this….http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6872281
    This is a story of terrorism, terrorism of children ….
    Illegal immigrant accused of sex assault
    By Phil Lipof
    LAKEWOOD (WABC) — Police in New Jersey say a teenager sexually assault nine girls, the oldest just 7 years old. And they fear there could be more victims out there.
    The teenager lives in Lakewood.
    A quiet apartment complex filled with families and young children was a hunting ground, police say, for the sexual predator. And they say his prey was little girls between the ages of 4 and 7.
    The Ocean County prosecutor says it all started with one complaint Saturday. But by Tuesday, there were nine alleged victims. And 18-year-old Cirilo Chalula, an illegal Mexican immigrant, was behind bars and charged with sexual assault.
    Story continues below
    Advertisement
    People who live in the complex say they would often see Chalula playing with children in the parking lot, always with young girls.
    No one answered at Chalula’s apartment, but people who live in the complex had plenty to say about the accusations. One father, who took his 5-year-old daughter to the school bus, says that if Chalula is guilty, jail is too good for him.
    “The electric chair,” he said. “He should get the electric chair.”
    That kind of anger is understandable, as there are children everywhere in the complex.
    Eyewitness News has learned that Chalula has only been there for a few months. He was living in New York City before that, and Mexico before that. He has reportedly been in this country illegally for two years now.
    The prosecutor is concerned there may be more victims out there.

  • Marisa Treviño
    June 20, 2009 at 8:19 am

    James, Criminals exist in all groups. From your comments, you would have us believe that ALL undocumented immigrants are like this sick guy. That’s like saying that all Anglos are embezzlers and Ponzi Scheme scam artists. I think those people who have no money would differ with your opinion.
    Crimes like this are bad but trying to make it look like that everyone is guilty of these crimes simply because they are undocumented is a blatant attempt to paint a picture that does not exist.

  • James
    June 20, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    “James, Criminals exist in all groups. From your comments, you would have us believe that ALL undocumented immigrants are like this sick guy. That’s like saying that all Anglos are embezzlers and Ponzi Scheme scam artists. I think those people who have no money would differ with your opinion.”
    Marisa, you exploit every attack upon a Latino by a non-Latino as a hate crime, but that isn’t true. You and your friends use data to prove that assaults (you call hate crimes) are up but you shamelessly ignore the fact that the analysis is flawed because the data is not corrected for the huge increase in the numbers of illegal aliens. The fact is that if our borders were secure and every would-be immigrant would stand inspection, then such acts might not occur. The fact is that if Latinos would quit protecting and encouraging illegal immigration, we wouldn’t have this problem. We hear of too many crimes like this not to connect criminal behavior with illegal immigrants. Our prisons are full of illegal alien Hispanics who’ve committed crimes in this country and were tired of it. This child would never have been hurt if this man had never been permitted to cross our border.

  • Marisa Treviño
    June 21, 2009 at 9:16 am

    James, I can only go by with what the FBI reports. I know perfectly well that not every crime is a hate crime and that’s why the FBI has set specific parameters in denoting what constitutes a hate crime. The sad fact is hate crimes exist and trying to dispute that fact is a refusal to see the reality of the situation.

  • Horace
    June 23, 2009 at 6:55 am

    “James, I can only go by with what the FBI reports.”
    Actually, you and the rest of the Latino activists like NCLR are using raw, unadjusted numbers to make your case that hate crimes have gone up. Once adjusted for the vast influx of illegal immigrants, the hate crime rate has actually declined. However, that doesn’t suit your agenda, so you ignore that fact. Check your facts, the FBI never said that the hate crime rate had gone up. That was a claim by the corrupt SPLC.

  • Marisa Treviño
    June 23, 2009 at 9:56 am

    Horace, Check YOUR facts again.

  • Evelyn
    June 25, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Services Division
    Feedback Contact Us Data Quality Guidelines UCR Home
    About Hate Crime Statistics, 2007
    http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/index.html

Comments are closed.

19 Comments