U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami has ruled that Florida’s law making it illegal to enter the state as an illegal immigrant violates the Supremacy clause and is prohibiting state enforcement of the law. The states, according to her, cannot have any immigration laws because the Feds already have them.
OK. I will accept that.
That also means that the states can’t enforce any gun laws. Or drug laws. Or laws on murder, kidnapping, or any other laws. In fact, let’s just get rid of the states. Make them political subdivisions of the Federal whole.
We know that isn’t what she and the rest of the activist judiciary want. If a case making the claim that California’s gun laws violated the supremacy clause were to come before one of these judges, it would be summarily dismissed. This isn’t about the Constitution or the law. It’s about twisting things to fit your side. Note that so called sanctuary states and cities haven’t had the same treatment.
We are living in a time when the law is nothing more than a tool to be used to get what you want.
22 Comments
old geezer · May 1, 2025 at 7:31 am
for a couple of decades now what was once called the left made the claim that within any human interaction there was always the people who had power and the people who were being oppressed by that power.
so they decided that power was the objective.
any questions ?
old geezer · May 1, 2025 at 7:35 am
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
from “ 1984 “ by George Orwell
Frank Pinelander · May 1, 2025 at 7:44 am
So we see branches of government arrayed against each other in irreconcilable fashion. One side clearly twisting objective law into partisan nonsense for the sake of obstruction. The people have split long ago into to hostile camps and the middle is drawn to one end or the other by necessity. The insane side sees Musk as a criminal and views Fauci as a saint. There is no talking to the other side now. Only one thing is left in the chain of events for this to play out.
J J · May 1, 2025 at 8:14 am
Really tired of these Clinton/Obama/Biden appointed judges ruling against the people of the United States.
SoCoRuss · May 1, 2025 at 10:38 am
It just not Clinton, OB/Biden, its all of them. You have Bush and even Trump judges doing the same thing. Its clear there is a major problem with separation of powers being ignored, without penalty we see from a “Republican Congress”, and that has to be fixed.. one way or another.
As we see daily, once a .GOV branch or agency gets power, they want more and more. Thats how all .GOVS work.Trump should give the SCOTUS one chance to correct this to what the constitution allows. If they refuse then fuck it all up. Divide the country now or let loose the dogs and the winner gets to choose.
If Trump actually does what he has mentioned a couple times lately about using the military against illegals something like the south border military zones, that WILL light the lefts fuse and we will see just how far they will go and if the right will respond or if not AGAIN they will sentence their children to race extinction because being called names is too mean for them to fight back….
SoCoRuss · May 1, 2025 at 12:10 pm
Since this story is about .GOV don’t give a fuck.
For all the Repubtards voters out there. Texas, the “alledged” bastion of the right and Repubtards,yes that Texas has a UK style anti meme law they are about to pass. No More funny/evil memes about pols or .GOV and broad and vague enough as usual to expand as far as they want. BUT DON’T WORRY, it’s just to protect Democracy and the Constitution you know….
And yet the right still wont get the truth about what this country has become.
Dam , I’m gonna become a morning drinker now….
Chris · May 2, 2025 at 4:40 am
Dam , I’m gonna become a morning drinker now….
Welcome to the party pal.cheers!!
Chris (CIII)
@HomeInSC · May 1, 2025 at 12:22 pm
A Trump-appointed judge just ruled against his use of the alien enemies act, narrowing the definition of enemy beyond what the law prescribes.
Meanwhile, on topic, power really is all that has ever mattered. We were able to maintain the illusion of a lawful order only to the extent that we were unified. Today’s hyperdivision is also deceptive: there is a huge, confused middle that is mostly afraid to speak and tentatively chooses a side because they are afraid to be separated from the herd and don’t know what else to do. This situation ends very badly for one of the camps. IMHO, the Left looks completely unhinged, literally insane. The country would be better off if they cured themselves…
joe · May 1, 2025 at 4:21 pm
we have 1 year and 265 days until the gop loses one house or the other (on purpose) and nothing will get done for 2 more years…so we have 4 years until the commie take over is complete…orange man bad is just a 4 year speed bump…
Bear in Indy · May 6, 2025 at 9:01 pm
You are right: and Trump knows iit.
Bear in Indy
hh475 · May 1, 2025 at 9:10 pm
The judge was right, even though I am strongly pro-deportation. One of the big reasons that the Articles of Confederation failed and we moved to the Constitution was that each State acted like the federal government and did things like set up tariffs, limited movement to and from other States, and engaged in its own foreign policy. So, for instance, Virginia might say that any goods coming in from Maryland had a 10% tariff, or that nobody could go from Maryland to North Carolina through Virginia, and on and on. And it really did create chaos, which is why it was scrapped. That’s why the first major legislation passed after the ratification of the Constitution was the Tariff Act of 1789, which put an end to state-level tariffs. States can have gun laws, etc., but only if they do not contradict federal law. And, they can’t have citizenship laws that in any way are different than the federal laws. It is just as wrong for a State to impose deportation laws as it is for a State to ignore them.
Divemedic · May 2, 2025 at 5:54 am
Can you point to where COTUS says that? If it’s the Supremacy clause, why doesn’t that clause apply to other laws, like drugs and guns?
old geezer · May 2, 2025 at 9:54 am
i know at least one other writer noticed the supremes were staying up late at night in order to be ready to issue their directive, 7-2, to protect the rights of illegal alien gangbangers.
the supremes let our j6 citizens rot in the dc gulag for years.
one question that has never been resolved, to the best of my limited knowledge, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? maybe we should have the supremes determine this, no ?
the point being, we live in clown world, to say it … delicately.
we know what happens when a citizen has contempt of a court.
what happens when an elite has contempt of it’s citizens ? we’re in the find out stage now.
hh475 · May 2, 2025 at 10:27 am
It is the Supremacy clause, among others. The guns thing invokes the Second Amendment, of course, but even so the States cannot create laws that contradict federal statutes. “Sanctuary” cities and states regarding gun laws are no more constitutional than are sanctuary cities and states regarding immigration. The question, at that point, becomes enforcement. With respect to immigration, sanctuary cities and states were permitted because the federal government under Biden *also* ignored the law, and when they weren’t, they were interpreting the laws they did enforce in a way that was favorable to illegal aliens. So, for instance, if there’s a law saying that “You can’t cross the border without going through a checkpoint” but the feds interpret that as “You can’t cross the border without going through a checkpoint except on days ending in a “y””, then the states can’t enforce it more stringently.
Fundamentally, the Supreme Court tends to defer to the feds whenever the feds bitch about States doing something the feds think is their territory. The difference is that with guns, the feds haven’t been litigating to limit state authority, while they have been litigating to limit state authority with immigration.
Here are two reviews:
https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/guttentag.pdf
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0621.htm
Divemedic · May 2, 2025 at 1:34 pm
If this were the case, then all state laws on guns and drugs are moot.
We know that isn’t the case.
And THAT is the problem.
hh475 · May 5, 2025 at 8:17 pm
Well, SCOTUS disagrees, and it’s there opinion counts. Here’s the big problem. You might have a drug that’s legal in one state and illegal in another, or a firearm that’s legal in one state and illegal in another, but that’s solved by only having that drug or firearm in the state it’s legal in. That’s different than having a *person* who is legal in one state and illegal in another. Interestingly, the SCOTUS used to agree with that idea — hence the Dred Scott decision. It turned out that this was unworkable, however. The idea of having States control immigration into and from the State ended with Appomattox.
Divemedic · May 6, 2025 at 7:07 am
Can you name a SCOTUS case where legalized marijuana has been heard? I’m not aware of it. The court has thus far deftly avoided that particular can of worms.
The court is politicized. We all know it. It’s time to stop placing all of our faith in black robed partisans.
hh475 · May 8, 2025 at 4:45 pm
It’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of practicality. One of the problems of the Supreme Court is that it has taken the role of the legislature because the legislature has become incapable of doing its job. Congress passes incomprehensible bills and everybody waits for SCOTUS to decide what they meant. I’m quite happy that SCOTUS generally decides not to intervene and avoids most of the things it can. There’s only so many ways you can slice the baby. When SCOTUS is not aggressive, people complain that it won’t take a stand. When SCOTUS is aggressive, people complain that it’s legislating from the bench. I’m quite happy that SCOTUS has avoided marijuana, etc. The reason that there’s more on immigration law is that having each state have a different immigration policy is simply unworkable. Having each state have a different marijuana law is irrelevant.
Sometimes it’s wacky, I’ll admit. I live in a state where automatic knives are legal, and I carry one. I often vacation in a neighboring state where they are also legal. However, if I take that knive from my state to that state, I’ve committed a felony because interstate transportation of an automatic knife is a federal offence. And don’t get me started on home distilling. But, those are not really *court* problems. None of these are. These are problems because the legislature simply no longer does its job. Congress and Senate exist simply to distribute tax money to rent seekers, and it’s left to the Executive and Judicial branches to govern.
I agree with you that the Judicial branch is becoming more and more politicized. The judicial response to Trump is demonstrating that, and Justice Jackson is the poster child for DEI political appointments. The sad thing is that the other branches are so far down that path that they are essentially nonfunctional. The Executive has done a good job of pretense with DOGE, but as one legislator has pointed out, none of the “savings” by DOGE are real until the legislature codifies it. I don’t think they will. I’m very concerned about what will happen when *none* of the branches of government are considered trustworthy by most of the nation.
McChuck · May 2, 2025 at 5:49 am
The law is a stick to beat your enemies with and extract wealth from the proles.
Dirty Dingus McGee · May 2, 2025 at 1:27 pm
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
SoCoRuss · May 2, 2025 at 12:11 pm
Last comment on this topic I promise.
Has anyone else noticed how all the things the commies were doing during Biden were truly terrible and a threat to freedom and liberty and all that bullshit and must be stopped according to folks on the right.
But now with the Messiah in office, all those same things appear to fine since “OUR” guys are doing it?
Also look at all the geezers protesting about SSA or medicare alledged changes, none of them seem to have a clue about whats going on just that they are NOW magically threatened by what Trumps doing? But it has been done all the time for decades now by .GOV in general so why now protest?
Is it just me or is there is a general large increase in levels of stupidity in our population in all population groups????
JaimeInTexas · May 3, 2025 at 9:29 am
Texas passed a law some yeats back and, IIRC, it was invalidated by the sCOTUS as unconstitutional.
Before the 14th amendment, a resident in a State in the union was uSA citizen by virtue of the State being in the uniion.
We are so far away from a Constitutional, principles, based legal system. That is why who a judge is determines the outcome.
“Rule of law not of men” is a joke.
Comments are closed.