All-In-One Judges (the only branch of Govt)

[xrayzebra]

Now some must wonder why the Conservatives get upset. Well read the
following little piece and you will see. Libs might want to take note, cause
I have the feeling they are going to be ing that conservative judges
take the law into their own hands.



Arizona taxpayers paying dearly for judicial activism
By Phyllis Schlafly

Feb 20, 2006


One of the most outrageous examples of out-of-control judges is the case called Flores v. Arizona, now pending in federal court in Tucson. Originally filed in 1992, plaintiff lawyers claim to represent an estimated 160,000 children of illegal immigrants attending Arizona public schools.

The case seeks to force Arizona taxpayers to pay for bringing these children, euphemistically called English Language Learners, up to grade level. The lawyers are trying to accomplish this by turning a state legislative issue into a federal judicial command.

In 2000, a judge appointed by former President Jimmy Carter ruled that the inability of illegal alien children to speak English well enough to succeed in school meant that Arizona was violating the federal Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974. This EEOA requires "appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation."

A decade ago, in a case that involved Alabama's policy about foreign-language driver's license exams, liberals attempted to induce activist judges to insert the word "language" into the 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of "national origin." The lawyers did persuade a district court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to legislate from the bench and do that.

However, in the 2001 case of Alexander v. Sandoval, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, rejecting the claim that someone can sue for accommodation for his foreign language based on the Civil Rights Act. In our era of supremacist judges who so often believe that they can "evolve" new meanings into the Cons ution and into statutes, and impose their own policy preferences, this was a welcome case of judicial restraint.

Nevertheless, hope springs eternal in the creative minds of lawyers who seek out supremacist judges. They are spurred on when deep pockets are available, and they find the deepest pockets when they can raid the American taxpayers.

So, back to Flores v. Arizona, where the Judge Alfredo C. Marquez had ruled against the taxpayers. But because the statute sets no standards for "appropriate action," the judge wisely said in 1999 that he would not subs ute the court's "educational values and theories for the educational and political decisions reserved to state or local school authorities."

The judge ordered the state to prepare a cost study so the legislature could act. The Legislature then passed three bills providing funds to address the problem of English Language Learners, but Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed all three.

The original judge retired, and the Flores case was handed over to Judge Ramer C. Collins, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. In December 2005, Collins imposed fines of $500,000 a day, escalating to $2 million a day, for every day that the legislature fails to authorize funding acceptable to the governor.
Napolitano wants the Arizona Legislature to appropriate nearly $1,200 per child. That could total $192 million, and she wants it without accountability for how it is to be spent.

Since Jan. 25, millions of dollars in court-ordered fines have been ac ulating. If this continues to the end of the legislative session, the fines will total more than $77 million.

With the judge on her side, the governor has no incentive to sign any bill passed by the legislature until she gets what she wants. Napolitano is the same person who, when she was Arizona's attorney general, had the responsibility to defend Arizona's taxpayers.

If there is any issue that should be clearly and exclusively a function of the legislature elected by the people it is the matter of raising taxes and spending the people's money. Unfortunately, there are many supremacist judges who think they (in this case, a judge and a governor) can order the legislature to raise taxes and tell them how to spend taxpayer money.

Flores v. Arizona makes it clear that our battle to reform the imperial judiciary is not finished just because two Bush-appointed justices have been seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. Hundreds of Clinton-appointed, Carter-appointed, and even Lyndon Johnson-appointed federal judges are continuing their judicial mischief in cases that will probably never reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Millions of non-English-speaking immigrants have come to America over several centuries. When their children went immediately into schools where only English was spoken, they learned English rapidly and taught it to their parents.

Immersion in English in public schools was the way this happened, and nobody ever thought of rewarding the immigrants or the schools with special appropriations. The immersion system worked just fine until liberal busybodies, with too much tax money at their disposal, decided to experiment on vulnerable immigrant children with unworkable, expensive projects such as the now discredited and misnamed "bilingual education."

Nobody seems to know why some Arizona children haven't learned English in the last five years. Can it be that the schools are allowing them to use Spanish in the classroom instead of the proven immersion method?


Phyllis Schlafly is the President and Founder of the Eagle Forum.

Copyright © 2006 Copley News Service


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...20/187186.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I might add we have had our share of junk rulings such as this in
Texas and are fixing to go through much of the same junk because we
have a legislature who will not accept it's responsibility and waits on the
courts to do their work. So much for a so called Republican state
Government where most were Dimm-o-craps and changed their party
to get elected.

[FromWayDowntown]

I might add we have had our share of junk rulings such as this in Texas and are fixing to go through much of the same junk because we
have a legislature who will not accept it's responsibility and waits on the
courts to do their work. So much for a so called Republican state
Government where most were Dimm-o-craps and changed their party
to get elected.

What "junk rulings" are those, xray? I want examples, not rhetoric. Point me to Texas cases that are "junk rulings" so that we can discuss them intelligently.

I don't know enough about the Arizona case to comment intelligently upon it. It seems to have become vogue to scathingly comment on judicial activities while ignoring the factual and legal cir stances that underlie those activities. For instance, the Supreme Court didn't rely on international law in concluding that the Eighth Amendment should prohibit the execution of minors -- it made that decision using American law only; it then confirmed that the decision was consistent with the views expressed in other countries. Somehow, though, that has been twisted into this garbage position that the Court is ignoring American law and relying on laws of other countries to decide what the law in America should be -- a position that could not do more to misrepresent what actually happened in that case. Until I know more about what happened in the Arizona case, I'm not remotely inclined to buy the diatribe of a political ideologue.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

things are difficult to fix in texas because of the way the sessions work

[xrayzebra]

What "junk rulings" are those, xray? I want examples, not rhetoric. Point me to Texas cases that are "junk rulings" so that we can discuss them intelligently.

I don't know enough about the Arizona case to comment intelligently upon it. It seems to have become vogue to scathingly comment on judicial activities while ignoring the factual and legal cir stances that underlie those activities. For instance, the Supreme Court didn't rely on international law in concluding that the Eighth Amendment should prohibit the execution of minors -- it made that decision using American law only; it then confirmed that the decision was consistent with the views expressed in other countries. Somehow, though, that has been twisted into this garbage position that the Court is ignoring American law and relying on laws of other countries to decide what the law in America should be -- a position that could not do more to misrepresent what actually happened in that case. Until I know more about what happened in the Arizona case, I'm not remotely inclined to buy the diatribe of a political ideologue.

Really, you know all the facts, huh? Well good for you. The robinhood
plan was not junk rulings. Yeah, I know the legs passed the law, but the
courts make the rulings. South San school board has good standing? Yeah,
and so does Jurarez. Where in a school district does 'independent' really
mean that? I don't have as much as "whoever" so give me some of their
money. BS, they want their own school district, then support it. Don't
ask others to. And don't act so high and mighty, you know damn well
what I am talking about. Where in the world does someone come into
a country with children illegally and demand they be given the same
rights as someone who is a citizen. Go to Mexico and try it. Down there
you have all the civil liberties in the world so long as you can stand the
pain. Give me a break.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I love it when old people get angry.

[xrayzebra]

I love it when old people get angry.

Yeah and I should have copyrighted my little saying, except it already had
been in the song...........Tom Jones did a good version of it.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yeah and I should have copyrighted my little saying, except it already had
been in the song...........Tom Jones did a good version of it.

I think the song has "woah, woah, woah, woah" not "meow meow meow"

Your thinking of the Meow Mix commericals.

[xrayzebra]

^^You may be right. Been long time since I heard it.

[Mr. Peabody]

The robinhood plan was not junk rulings. Yeah, I know the legs passed the law, but the courts make the rulings.

Where in a school district does 'independent' reallymean that? I don't have as much as "whoever" so give me some of theirmoney. BS, they want their own school district, then support it. Don't ask others to.

Didn't a court, namely the Texas Supreme Court, rule that the Robin Hood plan was uncons utional?

[xrayzebra]

Yes, but the law was passed to satisfy an earlier ruling by the court. Remember?

[RandomGuy]

I think people who like to about court rulings should really direct their ire at legislatures.

When legislatures sit on their thumbs and fail to act in things, or write crappy legislation in the first place, why should we be surprised that issues/laws end up in courts?

[Vashner]

It's all a big machine. It works good for now.

Better than recent... Tower of London anyone?

Or a pit in the ground like lost.

Or maybe we just jump up in down and burn islamic president dolls and wave AK's all day like dumbass terrorists.

Our system is ed but it ing works...

[RandomGuy]

It's all a big machine. It works good for now.

Better than recent... Tower of London anyone?

Or a pit in the ground like lost.

Or maybe we just jump up in down and burn islamic president dolls and wave AK's all day like dumbass terrorists.

Our system is ed but it ing works...

Gotta give ya cred for being consistant...
(...ly incoherent)