Judges Kavanaugh Truth

Five Imperatives For Seeking Truth At The Kavanaugh-Ford Hearing

by Dr. Julio Gonzalez, M.D

The Senate Judiciary Committee and Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, have reached an agreement to hold a hearing on Thursday. Although it has been said that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has laid out terms unfair to Ford and insensitive to the plight of women, in reality the truth of the matter cannot be sought without these conditions, and Ford should welcome Grassley’s conditions as it will help to ensure her credibility; provided of course, she is being honest.

If the committee is seeking the truth of what may or may not have happened, there are five imperatives that must take place.

First, it is imperative that Ford speak under oath. The charge against Kavanaugh is extremely serious, about as serious as it gets. Thus every effort must be made to ascertain the veracity of the information provided. Recall there is no corroborating evidence, no witnesses having first hand knowledge of the situation (or second hand for that matter), no forensic evidence, and no physical evidence. In short, this case comes down to the strength of Ford’s word against that of Kavanaugh’s, making it crucial that the veracity of Ford’s comments be established.

Placing Ford under oath is the only way society has to help guarantee the veracity of her testimony. Without the weight of an oath, Ford would be free to say anything she wants without legal consequences. Her testimony could be a complete work of fiction, and no one would know any better, nor would there be any legal ramifications to her having delivered it.

But when Ford is placed under oath, she is legally ascertaining the information she gives is true to the point of being subject to perjury should she fail to tell the truth. Although, as a lawyer, I advise anyone to not voluntarily place himself or herself under oath (even when that person is innocent) here Ford must place herself under oath if she is to be believed.

Ford is not under investigation, so no charges should be placed against her so long as she tells the truth. On the contrary, she is calling for an investigation of another under circumstances where no other evidence exists. She must, therefore, deliver her testimony under oath if her charges have any hope of sticking. The protections for her lie in the limitations of the scope of the inquiry, the topics to be covered.

The second imperatives is that all topics and subtopics regarding the Kavanaugh allegations must be on the table, inclusive of any social media posts, whether they be favorable or unfavorable. Obviously, it would be reasonable to demand that no other topics, such as Ford’s finances, or matters that would subject her to possible litigation in other arenas, be examined, as she ought not be placed in a situation where she self-incriminates. But, if Ford’s accusations are sincere, then Ford should welcome the opportunity to tell her story under oath rather than resist it.

Join Our Fight For American Values!

For this reason, it would also be prudent for Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, to be present at the hearing so she may object to inappropriate questions. Although Chairman Grassley would be the ultimate arbiter of whether the question stands or not, Ford ought to be able to refuse to answer, the consequence of her doing so in the face of a valid question is the undermining of her credibility.

The third imperative is Grassley’s requirement that Ford deliver her testimony first. This is as important as speaking under oath, and it is the only logical sequence of events if we are to assume that Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty. Absent such a chronological sequence the judge has no concrete understanding of the charges before him and would be unable to appropriately defend himself.

The fourth imperative is that the accusation ought to be made before Judge Kavanaugh. This is not an intimidation tactic, nor is it merely a hypothetical issue. Being required to appear before the person one is accusing serves as an added check upon the veracity of the testimony as it is much more difficult, at least for many of us, to falsely accuse someone when doing so in the accused’s presence.

Like Us On Facebook

The fifth and final imperative is the opportunity for questioning by the members of the committee. In law, the most effective tool in deciphering the truth of the matter asserted is the opportunity to cross-examine a witness; under oath.  Yes, in the Senate Judiciary Committee there is no provision for a real cross examination, but the inquiries of the full members of the committee, many of whom are lawyers, should at least partly make up for that and ought to be effective at revealing any inconsistencies, if any, in Kavanaugh’s and Ford’s testimonies. It is impossible to tease out the facts without it.

Yes, it is important that Ford be heard. However, it is even more important that the truth be ascertained. Such a goal, the only one that matters, may only be accomplished if Grassley insists on the conduct of a hearing in a manner designed to elicit the truth. Grassley ought to stick to his guns on these provisions, and Ford ought to welcome them.  Otherwise, better not to hold the hearing at all.

A sham is worth than nothing — if truth is the goal.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Judges Supreme Court Truth

An Unconscionable Display Of Mockery In The Senate

by Dr. Julio Gonzalez

“An unconscionable, gross, and utter disregard for the institution of the Senate and for the dignity of the Chamber, if there is any such dignity left.”  

This is how I characterize the circus that was the opening of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

From the very outset, the proceedings played out like a pay-per-view freak show. No sooner had Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, begun calling the meeting to order than the mockery of the confirmation process began. Immediately, Sen. Kamala Harris in an out-of-order rant unbecoming of a grade school student council member, much less a sitting senator, yelled at Grassley, demanding that he delay the proceedings due to the prior night’s release of 42,000 pages of documents relating to the Judge.  

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., immediately followed with disruptors in the crowd joining in by yelling and screaming at the Republican members of the Committee.  

The mood at the dais, which initially appeared to be somewhat relaxed, turned deathly somber as the Democrats continued their disorderly, staged rants, with contributions from Sens. Cory Booker and Mazie Hirono.

I have been watching and participating in legislative proceedings, both at the state and federal levels, for over two decades. Never have I seen a more despicable disregard for the decorum of the United States Senate, nor a greater disrespect for the conduct of the work of serving the American people, than what took place during these hearings.  

Let’s be perfectly clear. Like him or not, Judge Brett Kavanaugh is an extremely capable judge with an impeccable record of service to this country and to the American people. His pursuit of justice centers on an unmitigated regard for the written law and for the strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.

Join Our Fight For Pro-American Values

I understand that there are many who wish that someone with such a strict interpretive philosophy of the founding documents and statutory language not be admitted entry to the Supreme Court of the United States. But such is not the standard by which a determination is made in considering a presidential nominee.  

The Constitution of the United States is very clear on this matter. It is the President who has the authority to nominate members to judicial appointment, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” Despite the efforts of the disruptors and Democrats in yesterday’s hearing, it is not up to the Senate to determine the philosophical makeup of the Supreme Court of the United States. That is up to the people of the United States through their election of the President; in this case, Donald J. Trump.  

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 76 spoke specifically to this point:

“To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. (emphasis added). It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of a favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connections, from personal attachment, or a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.”

Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is neither the result of a spirit of favoritism, of family connections, or of personal attachment; nor is Kavanaugh a man of unfit character selected from State prejudice. Rather, by all accounts, after review of decades of public work, of over 300 judicial opinions, and of more documents than were available for the last five judicial nominees combined, Judge Kavanaugh demonstrates himself to be an upstanding character of impeccable judgment and standing within his geographical and professional communities.

Like Us On Facebook

If the Senate has any regard for its place in American governance, or of the role afforded it by the Constitution of the United States, it would see no viable choice but to approve this nomination; and the Democrats, rather than making a mockery of themselves and of our political system, should acknowledge this.

Yesterday’s display of nonsensical, cheap, political comedy is quite simply the result of one thing, and one thing only: the squeals of pain and immaturity displayed by a political faction intent on keeping its most valuable legislative player, the Supreme Court of the United States, from being removed from the game of inappropriately legislating.  

Over the past 100 years, the progressive-infested Supreme Court has single handedly cut down legislation and social norms to suit its agenda. It has done so under the guise of judicial interpretation, but always with an aim at undercutting the legislature’s will, and in so doing, the will of the people of the United States. The fact that this oligarchical monopoly is coming to an end is the source of great angst amongst the liberals in the Senate, but ultimately, it is not in their hands to decide.  

That decision fell upon the people of the United States, and they chose Donald J. Trump.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Constitution Immigration Judges Truth

States Have Power Over Sports Gambling, Not Over Illegals

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

To assert that sports gambling and immigration and naturalization are the same undermines the authority of the Constitution itself, and has the potential to create the very crisis the creators of the Constitution were attempting to avoid.

The U.S Supreme Court recently rendered an opinion in the case Murphy v. NCAA regarding the State’s ability to legalize sports gambling. The majority Court opined that the 10th Amendment made the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) unconstitutional, thereby taking the stance that the States were not only not bound by this federal law, but that the States could indeed, pass legislation to legalize sports gambling within their State. (To better understand this particular opinion, please read this explanation.)

There are many, from judges to media pundits, who now profess that this opinion regarding States’ power and sports gambling will also set a precedent to justify several States’ actions to ignore federal laws regarding immigration and naturalization. I would not even be surprised if some federal judges attempted to use this argument to render certain federal laws regarding naturalization void.

However, this is not the conclusion that can be drawn if we are to follow the Constitution and the terms of this contract that binds the States into the American union.


  1. The Controlling Law is the Constitution, Not Precedent

The controlling law in this matter, first and foremost, is not precedent set by a judge or court, but the Constitution itself. We know through Article 6 Clause 2 of the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We also know from this clause that only the laws made by Congress that are within compliance with the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land. Several drafters of this Constitution spoke on this matter making the conditional nature of federal laws even more clear.

“…the power of the Constitution predominates. Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.” James Wilson, 1787 Ratification Debates

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

Fight For Foundational American Values!

The Supremacy Clause itself declares that laws made by Congress that are inconsistent with the powers specifically enumerated to the federal government are not binding upon the States.  Within the Bill of Rights is the 10th Amendment, which serves as further clarification of this separation of powers between the States and the federal government.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 10th Amendment (emphasis mine)


  1.  Delegation of Powers Makes the Legal Distinction

It is within the distinct separation of powers between the States and federal government that the Constitutional difference exists between States legislating sports gambling and States denying the Uniformed Rules of Naturalization. Simply put, the power to establish Uniform Rule of Naturalization is a power delegated to the federal government through the States’ Constitutional compact; the power to make laws regarding gambling is not. (NOTE: The assertion that the federal government is empowered to regulate gambling through the “commerce clause” is an errant expansion of federal power through judicial “interpretation” that was not intended by the drafters.)

The authority to make the Uniform Rule of Naturalization was expressly delegated to Congress through Article 1 section 8 clause 4 of the Constitution:

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

It could not be clearer. The purpose of this power being delegated was to correct serious problems that had arisen through the Articles of Confederation due to “the dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization” that James Madison identifies in Federalist #42 as “a fault in our system.” Madison appropriately defines “naturalization” as the classification that bestows upon an alien “all privileges and immunities of free citizens.”

In the previous Constitution, the definitions of citizenship were left to the independent States creating not only confusion amongst the States, but as Madison asserts, a potential for “embarrassment” and “chaos.” When the States established their own standard of naturalization, creating different standards across the Union, an alien could enjoy the benefits of citizenship in one State but not others. So an alien who enjoys the benefits of citizenship in one State could bring the legal claim to demand the benefits of citizenship in other States who have different standards.

Like Us On Facebook

Madison said this claim would establish that “the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of another.” Those who ratified the Constitution considered this to be a problem too serious to not be provided against. Therefore, the power to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization was established; to ensure a single standard from State to State for aliens to become citizens and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.


  1. States of the Union Must Recognize the Authority of the Constitution

Every State that enters the Union under this Constitution, must agree that this power is delegated to the federal government and must admit they do not have the authority to alter those standards. If they do so, they are violating the terms of the Constitution they agreed to when entering the Union and are breaking their fiduciary duty to the other States.

The federal exercise of the power over the standards for naturalization is consistent with the Constitution, by the terms of the Constitution, and the States are bound by it. Any alteration of this standard is not only contrary to the intent of the Constitution, but also contrary to the very language itself. Cities and States who are allowing aliens to vote, to hold government office or to participate in tax payer benefits and welfare are violating the terms of the Constitution and their duty to the other States.


  1. Gambling and Naturalization are not Constitutionally the Same

The Supreme Court was correct in its opinion to say that PASPA does not control the States.  However, to claim Murphy v. NCAA creates a precedent that will allow States to create their own standards for applying the benefits of citizenship to aliens is errant and dangerous. If the courts suggest that a State can create its own standard for citizenship, then what will prevent a State from refusing citizenship status to people based upon their religion, skin color, or political ideology, and then subsequently demanding that standard upon other States?

Finally, as Madison explains in Federalist #42, “If we are to be one nation in any respect, it clearly ought to be in respect to other nations.” The entire purpose behind the States creating the federal government is to be a representative on behalf of the States in foreign affairs. The manner in which an alien becomes a citizen is just as much a foreign affair as a domestic one.  To have uniformity in that manner not only makes for better foreign relations, but will also, as Madison again explains, foster “the harmony and proper intercourse among the States.”

For the State to create laws contrary to the Constitution is quite different from a State creating laws when the power has been reserved to the States. That distinction is what the 10th Amendment is all about. Gambling is a power reserved to the States; Naturalization is a power delegated to the federal government. To assert that the two are the same, undermines the authority of the Constitution itself and has the potential to create the very crisis the creators of the Constitution were attempting to avoid.

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy.  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


Courts DACA Immigration Judges Obama Truth

Alienage Discrimination Is Now A Thing. And It’s Really Bad

Rod Thomson

“Alienage discrimination” is exactly what is sounds like; the discrimination against people specifically based on them being in the country illegally. It’s little known, but it is fatally dangerous for America.

Right up front, the threat here is that if alienage discrimination gains the same legal civil rights protections as, say, racial discrimination, then we can shut down ICE and any deportations. Once someone slips into the United States they will have essentially the full legal protections of any legal resident. Which is approximating insanity.

But traveling the remaining distance into the nationally insane, there would be standing and precedent to ultimately require “undocumented residents” the actual right to vote. If you are looking for the signs of America’s ultimate downfall from within, this would be in flashing neon.

Not surprisingly perhaps, this affront to legal, rational reasoning and national sovereignty comes courtesy of President’s Obama’s pen when he created DACA after Congress would not do what he wanted. Also not surprising, it is finding some foothold with Obama-appointed judges who act solely as policymakers, not arbitrators of law. (If political leaders are seeking appropriate places to use impeachment, these judges are prime targets.)

This is not a one-off.

Twice now in the past few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants have legal standing to sue American employers that won’t hire them because they are here illegally. The companies require their workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents such as green card holders. Not that long ago, this was seen as the responsible way to limit illegal immigration; by businesses not hiring them.

The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in South Florida, who handed an open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a giant U.S. company of alienage discrimination against an illegal immigrant by not hiring him because he was in the country illegally.

Help Us Fight For Foundational American Values!

The lawsuit was filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a radically leftist, anti-American group that launches lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants. MALDEF has an extensive political agenda, including pushing for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new illegal immigrants. MALDEF officially labels American immigration enforcement as racist and xenophobic, going so far as to charge that it is racist for English to be the country’s official national language. And naturally, it violates civil rights to wall off the southern border.

Judicial Watch has been following these cases. It reports:

In the recent Florida case a Venezuelan immigrant, David Rodriguez, living in Miami is suing consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble for refusing to give him a paid internship because he is not a legal resident or citizen of the United States. MALDEF filed the lawsuit last year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Procter & Gamble requires citizenship and immigration status information on its applications and warns that candidates “must be a U.S. citizen or national, refugee, asylee or lawful permanent resident.” Rodriquez is neither and he quickly played the discrimination card after getting nixed as a candidate. In a statement MALDEF’s president reminds that “work-authorized DACA holders are valuable contributors to our economy” and “should not have to face arbitrary and biased exclusions from employment, especially by large and sophisticated corporations like Procter & Gamble.”

In 2014, MALDEF filed a lawsuit against Northwestern Mutual insurance company in New York because the company required a Mexican illegal alien protected by DACA to have a green card. MALDEF claimed that requiring Ruben Juarez, a Mexican national, to provide proof of legal residency resulted in “alienage discrimination.” The judge ruled in favor of Juarez.

In the most recent case, Judge Kathleen Williams, a 2011 Obama appointee, cited that 2014 ruling in her ruling in favor of Venezuelan Rodriguez. In denying Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s lawsuit, Judge Williams ruled the Venezuelan immigrant’s claims are “strikingly similar” to Juarez’s.

Like us on Facebook

What this means is that DACA is clearly not seen as a temporary measure to help the “kids” — although Rodriguez is 34 years old, meaning he was nearly an adult when he slipped illegally into the United States. It’s obviously being used to create a pathway for permanent, legally-protected status and citizenship-level rights for people who came here illegally. And it’s being accomplished without any elected official ever taking a vote or making a decision. It’s all through activist judges.

But this alienage discrimination method/precedent has vaster implications. First, it could — and will with legal successes — turn into class action lawsuits against every major U.S. corporation that has policies in place for only hiring people in America legally. That would likely include all Fortune 500 companies plus thousands of others who have high training costs for new employees. It’s unknown what the total financial costs of that would be, but unarguably deep into the billions of dollars that American companies following American laws might be required to transfer to people who are in America illegally.

Second and most serious, establishing the concept of alienage discrimination would cripple America’s efforts to maintain internal order among its citizens. A nation that cannot regulate or deport people who come to the country illegally, or overstay illegally, is a country that is quickly enroute losing its sovereignty.

Subscribe to our Revolutionary Youtube

If “undocumented residents” are given special civil rights discrimination protections currently afforded to certain minorities — which is what MALDEF is asking for and these rulings are beginning to confer — then they have a case for proportional representation in employment, university acceptance and so on; against alienage profiling by law enforcement; and ultimately a case for voting rights. If it is illegal to discriminate against blacks, for instance, in voting rights and illegal aliens are protected by the same civil rights, then voting must follow.

If that sounds absurd and extreme, please see the history of the past few years.

This is not how the United States continues as a functioning, sovereign nation. Many have long said that America will not fall from without, but from within. This would be a pathway in accomplishing that fall.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy.  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


Democrats Judges Racism Schumer Truth

The Racism Of Chuck Schumer And Democrats On Full Display

Rod Thomson

Democrats aren’t even pretending on race anymore. And the following example shows as much as any other why they cannot be the majority party again as long as they pursue such a racist agenda.

The race card has long been a keystone of Democratic electoral strategy. Divide by race. Label the other side racist. Claim they will protect minorities from the evil majority in the racist other party. And most recently, President Trump is definitely, definitely a racist and also a white supremacist.

But the real evidence of racism is on the Democratic side.

The recent opposition to President Trump’s judicial nominee Marvin Quattlebaum for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina is solely based on skin color. Quattlebaum is white and Obama had nominated two blacks to replace the former white judge on the court.

Rallying all the disingenuity at his disposal, Schumer said:

“The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump’s selections for the federal judiciary…Quattlebaum replaces not one, but two scuttled Obama nominees who were African American.”

The Revolutionary Youtube Channel

One of those voluntarily withdrew from consideration when it was discovered that she reduced bail for accused criminals who then went out and committed murder. Twice. The other nominee was late in the Obama presidency and was not voted on. No one doubts that Obama was appointing those based on their skin color. For Schumer, that’s all right as long as they are black. Because…votes.

Schumer went on: “As of February 14, 83 percent of President Trump’s confirmed nominees were male, 92 percent were white. That represents the lowest share of non-white candidates in three decades…It’s long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents. Having a diversity of views and experiences on the federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice.”

“I’ll be voting no on the Quattlebaum nomination.”

Schumer mustered no other opposition based on Quattlebaum’s legal expertise, experience or qualifications. The entire opposition was because Quattlebaum is white. That’s called racism.

All that should matter in a judge is that he or she is qualified and will rule based on the law. Using race as the determining factor is begging for judges and judicial rulings that are not based on law, but based on skin color. And that is more than dangerous. If it is the color of the judge’s skin and not the law that matters, then why should judges rule based on the law, and not in accordance with their skin color? If they are appointed to be a judge based on skin color, then why shouldn’t they judge based on skin color?

But in this, he is completely in line with the Democratic Party. An honest media would be calling out this bald stoking of racial tensions for political gain. But we don’t have an honest traditional media. We do have the Daily Caller and other alternative media outlets that are reporting these types of things.

Actually, the traditional media may well report the racial disparities that Schumer mentioned, because its primary goal today is to discredit the Trump presidency, help Democrats in the midterm elections and defeat Trump in 2020 if they cannot get him removed before then.

But there are actually good reasons for the apparent discrepancy. Like all Presidents, Trump is appointing judges in line with his legal thinking. Finding black jurists who are originalists in the form of Justice Clarence Thomas is not easy. Their numbers are just tiny.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline Blog did some basic math:

“Blacks make up about 4.5 percent of all lawyers in America. But because black admission to law school has increased in recent years, they are a smaller proportion of lawyers in the age group from which the federal judiciary is drawn.

Trump has nominated 87 federal judges. One is black. Based on black representation among lawyers in the reasonably eligible age group, we would expect Trump to have nominated around three blacks. The shortfall (two judges) is insignificant.”

So Schumer and a majority of other Democrats who voted against Quattlebaum are saying that he was the wrong skin color. There’s no real expectation of a contextual, reasonable discussion. It’s all division. All politics. All get Trump.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy.  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


Courts Judges Liberalism Trump Truth

Another Liberal Activist Judge Rules; Congress Can Stop The Madness

by  Rep. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

In another striking judicial development, Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee from San Francisco, issued an injunctive order Jan. 9 prohibiting President Trump from moving forward rescinding President Obama’s DACA order.

Although it only applied to established DACA applicants, and left untouched the ban on future applications, the order is offensive nevertheless, and demonstrates the terrible problem plaguing our country resulting from the actions of activist judges.

Essentially, the plaintiffs, which included the State of California, argued that President Trump had acted randomly and capriciously in removing the DACA order because, among other reasons, he did not give notice and did not allow for a period of public commentary prior to issuing his rescindment.  

But here’s the thing, neither did Obama.

Obama himself issued his own DACA order single-handedly, without due process, and outside any compliance with any statutory requirements — and after saying he did not have the Constitutional authority to do so. Therefore, when President Trump acted to discontinue the DACA order, he was actually rescinding an illegal act, making Alsup’s ruling even more egregious — and overtly political.  

The inescapable conclusion of all these actions is that Judge Alsup was less informed in his ruling by the law, than by his disdain for the President’s policies, and possibly, for the President himself. Relevant to this: Just two weeks before this political ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a different DACA-related Alsup order.

Additionally, the judge applied his order to the whole nation. This latter issue is particularly problematic as it is allowing individuals in the judiciary to paralyze policy decisions on a national scale even though the district of any particular judge does not encompass a large geographical area.

Check Our Youtube Site

This latter problem is actually one that can be fixed by Congress.  Congress has the authority to create and define the powers of the lower courts.  As evidenced by the results of this case, it is time for Congress to limit the scope of judicial orders to only the geographical extent of their district.

And as for the greater problem of an overzealous judiciary, it is high time that the American people enact some sort of check on America’s increasingly partisan courts.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.