REINING In “Progressive” DA’s/Prosecutors, Finally: Encouraging ILLEGAL Aliens To Remain In The US Is A Crime, Supreme Court Rules
INTRODUCTION BY ADINA KUTNICKI Miracle of miracles, every once in a while, sanity prevails — even in the midst of the most insane moment(s) in time. This is especially noteworthy, that is, in relation to the U.S. court system and its upside down quest for justice, namely, so-called “social justice!”
Effectively, whereas the courts used to be the final arbiter and address — the adjunct arm to the police — in upholding law and order and safeguarding the public, yes, their sine qua non, this is, tragically, no longer the case.
In what has become a nightmarish reality, so-called “progressive” prosecutors are not in the law-enforcement business, rather, they are activists for revolutionary transformation and change! You got that? The law, what’s that?? In reality, and for all intents and purpose, they are in the anti-enforcement business! No kidding.
To wit, the following is the long and short of what’s really going down, “justice-wise”: For years, George Soros, the devil incarnate, has been fueling and funding campaigns of far-left DA’s all across the nation, city-by-city. He understands — as do many of the left’s “social-justice” foot soldiers — that to be “agents of transformation”, it starts at the doorstep of the DA’s office, that is, in the hand-picking of similarly-inclined prosecutors. Again, said “progressive” warriors have turned “justice” upside its head. By abusing the doctrine of “prosecutorial discretion”, all benefit is now accrued to the criminal, regardless of the heinousness of their crime!! Yes, to the horror of millions upon millions of law-abiding citizens, this mind-blowing societal “change” and overhaul that they are witnessing is coming straight from the court system. No doubt.
But for a real birds-eye view of the societal wreckage — for the most part, done on the QT — look no further than here. Indeed, bringing down America is the targeted goal!
{Chesa Boudin, a most brazen revolutionary DA, fist-bumps his way to San Fran’s total destruction!}
In this regard, finally, here is some good news: A knock-on effect to the hotter than hot all-important arena of illegal immigration has been put in its rightful place — mind you, by a body of jurists which has been plagued by judicial activism for several decades, no less.
DAILY CALLER.com JASON HOPKINS May 8, 2020
he Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that forbids encouraging illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. unlawfully in a decision Thursday.
The Supreme Court justices voided an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that a federal anti-harboring statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech. The ruling by the nation’s highest court Thursday upholds the law.
The Supreme Court not only vacated the appeals court’s decision, but also criticized the judges for “drastically” straying from judicial norms.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart of the bench, wrote the high court’s opinion.
“[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion,” Ginsburg wrote, and later stated that “a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.” (RELATED: Trump’s Win With Appeals Court Prevents Release Of 250 ICE Detainees)
The decision brings to a close a court battle that lasted roughly 10 years.
A grand jury indicted California immigration consultant Evelyn Sineneng-Smith in 2010 for multiple violations of anti-harboring laws, which make it a felony to “encourag[e] or induc[e] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”
A group of illegal aliens wait on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande river, after floating across in a tire tube, in Laredo, Texas May 2, 2006. U.S. Border Patrol agents intercepted the group and they eventually went back to Mexico.
Sineneng-Smith encouraged illegal alien clients to apply for a certification that would allow them to remain legally in the country, despite them not qualifying for the certification, according to the indictment. She would charge her clients a fee for this service, and allegedly made millions off of the scheme.
Sineneng-Smith earned more than $3.3 million off of her clients, legal affairs outlet Jurist reported.
In a challenge to the decision, Sineneng-Smith argued that the law violated her right to free speech. The Ninth Circuit reversed her conviction, finding that the entire law was invalid as an over broad restriction of speech.
The Ninth Circuit’s reversal however, was not based on arguments presented by her defense, but by third party arguments submitted to the panel of judges.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit overstepped its authority by injecting an argument not made by the defendant herself. The decision ultimately reaffirms that parties — not the courts — shape issues in a court case.
The case is now to be sent back to the Ninth Circuit “for reconsideration … bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by parties.”
The decision was hailed by immigration hawks.
“We applaud the Court’s well-reasoned decision,” Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of Immigration Reform Law Institute, said in a statement.
“Unfortunately, the Court did not have to reach the issue of whether this important statute is constitutional, but it did keep the law in place. When and if the overbreadth issue is brought up properly by a defendant in the future, we will be there,” Wilcox said.
