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.