Protecting our Southern Borders

So, while meeting with with the President at the Whitehouse, a group of Republican Senators discussed responsible immigration reform. The senators put forth the argument that prior to enacting any further regulations the Fed should secure the southern border. Our President disagreed with the Senators at the meeting, but shortly afterward announced that he was sending 1200 National Guard troops to “help police the border”. While some may herald this as a move in the right direction and others may claim that he is trying to make the Republican Senators look foolish for vociferously disagreeing with him, a closer examination portrays incredibly partisan political extremism.

Before anyone stops reading because I am bashing this administration, consider my reasons for taking this position. First and foremost, 1200 additional troops is atrociously inadequate to the task. Secondly and more important, the 1200 troops are not allowed to guard the border, they are only allowed to offer administrative support to the boarder patrol. This administrative support does nothing to “help police our border”. Even in the event that these troops were actually allowed to function as boarder guards, 1200 additional troops covering a border which is 1800 miles long and has a very harsh DMZ of approximately 60 miles north from the border wouldn’t begin to address the problem. This can only be interpreted as partisan political gamesmanship by the President.

In support of the previous statement I note that since the Presidents announcement, administration officials have already begun to spin his action as an attempt to “reach across the table” and come to a compromise with rigid Republican legislators who are not willing to work with him. This administration and most specifically the President continue to follow a growing habit of deriding anyone who disagrees with his position. The President will now pander to the ignorant and uniformed of his supporters to portray the Republican legislators as partisan politicians who place their interest above those of the American people. In fact, his actions show that he is unwilling to consider the opinions of anyone who doesn’t support him blindly, including the majority of the American voting public.

I am truly depressed that I have come to think this way because, although I couldn’t in good conscious vote for candidate Obama, I had hoped that as President, he would grow into the job of being a statesman. I had the same hope for President Bush and was disappointed by him as well, but at least he didn’t embarrass the office of the President. Unfortunately, what I see in President Obama is a growing narcissistic arrogance which belittles the man, the office of the Presidency and embarrasses the people who are proud to their core to be an American. We, the proud and loyal citizens of this country, deserve better from our President. We also deserve to have our borders protected from the absurdly excessive illegal and criminal entry across our southern border.

KAGAN NOMINATION

First, let’s consider what we actually KNOW About Nominee Kagan:

1) She argued that movies, library books, and other media may be banned or censored in some circumstances, before SCOTUS in the CU v. FEC case.

2) She believes the Court can continue expanding rights and governmental power/control and supports broad executive powers. She vigorously defended "EXTREMELY BROAD EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY" before her 9-0 smack down from the Court on her challenge of the Solomon Amendment.

3) She wrote, “The bottom-line issue in the appointments process must concern the kinds of judicial decisions that will serve the country and, correlatively, the effect the nominee will have on the Court’s decisions . . . If that is too results oriented … so be it. . .”

4) In her senior thesis, "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933," she bemoaned the death of socialism in this country.

Now, consider some reactions from Liberal Academians and Bloggers:

“She appears to have gotten tenure at the University of Chicago based on a single article, something that’s not allowed at most top schools, she is certainly a nominee who has one of the thinnest records, in terms of writing, that we have seen in years.”” said Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at The George Washington University

“Accepting Kagan just because people like Obama is wrong. That’s appropriate for ‘American Idol,’ not the Supreme Court. Nobody knows what she stands for but him.” - liberal blogger Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake

While Kagan did win tenure at the University of Chicago in 1995, her limited body of academic work played a role in the university’s decision not to allow her to reclaim her post after her White House stint, associates said.

My personal reaction to her nomination:

The SCOTUS was envisioned and designed to be an independent entity for a reason -- to avoid executive pressure. Like an umpire, the SCOTUS should have the reputation of an impartial entity, interpreting our basic document, the Constitution, not amending it or changing it. Otherwise, it is a useless, bureaucratic monstrosity and the tool of an over-reaching executive power grab.

Justice, especially on the SCOTUS, MUST look at the facts and only the facts of the case, apply the tenets of the constitution and render a decision based upon the constitution, period. The court should not be functioning as another government agency supporting the executive branch and its ideological views.

I may be old fashioned but I think the Supreme Court's highest duty is to protect the liberties of the American people as outlined in the Constitution of the United States. More often than not, it should not be assisting the inevitable thrust of the government for more power, but reining it in. The race, wealth, politics, or status of the people involved is immaterial.

Consider that nominee Kagan tried to kick military recruiters off the Harvard campus, despite the federal law authorizing it. Like Pres. Obama, she appears ambivalent about whether federal law needs to be followed. She seems to think you can ignore it if it suits you or it is politically expedient. Is this the proper attitude for a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land? I think not.

Unfortunately, Madam Kagan, like Judge Sotomayor do not believe that this is the case. They have stated that the court should consider cases, not based upon the constitutionality of the issue but on the basis of the individual. President Obama is doing his level best to appoint functionaries who support this ideological belief in the expansion of a central government. Madam Kagan is another example of this effort and I find her appointment very threatening to the operation and independence of the SCOTUS.

One of the most dangerous views expressed by Nominee Kagan is her seeming desire to move toward administrative law. If what she writes and says is true, she has little respect for the rules of law, let alone the constitution if it doesn’t support those, who in her view, are the underdogs. She has written and seems to believe that person A deserves a different level of justice than person B because A and B are of different races, religions, political parties, income levels, sexual orientation or whatever. I firmly believe that anyone who holds these views should not be considered qualified to serve on any court in this country and most especially a lifetime appointment the SCOTUS.