Thread: The arrest of persons in a public place is constitutionally permissible SCOTUS

Judge Claims Immigration Law Unenforceable Inside Courthouse


California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (R) swears Jerry Brown (L) in as the 39th governor of California as Brown's wife, Anne Gust-Brown (C), looks on January 3, 2011, in Sacramento, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

By Michael Reagan
Saturday, 08 Apr 2017 12:27 PM


I would hope that only in California would the public face the prospect of the chief justice of the California State Supreme Court attempting to add courthouses to the growing list of "sanctuaries" for immigration lawbreakers.

It’s still somewhat stunning to me that immigration law enforcement agents are viewed with the same contempt the left usually reserves for the Mutaween, the Saudi Arabian religious police in charge of imposing Sharia law on the populace.

Even during Prohibition, the Treasury Agents that cracked down on booze didn’t face the level of hostility from a nation that was still drinking than Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents do today.

Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye combines a desire to legislate from the bench with a compelling ignorance of the law. She sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly asking them to forbid ICE agents from making arrests in California courthouses.

Cantil-Sakauye, according to a report by AP, claimed courthouse arrests constituted officers "'stalking' immigrants [and] was thwarting justice."

Giving Cantil-Sakauye’s hysterical ranting more respect than it deserved, Sessions and Kelly explained, "'stalking' is a crime where a victim is being followed or harassed. The arrest of persons in a public place based upon probable cause has long been held by the United States Supreme Court as constitutionally permissible."

The judge holds the bizarre view that enforcing immigration law only serves to "undermine public safety" because people who have already violated one type of law won’t be willing to help her enforce another type of law that she thinks they may somehow support.

Of course if California cities didn’t make a fetish of protecting non-citizens at the expense of citizens, none of this would be necessary. Local law enforcement would turn immigration law violators over to federal authorities and be done with it. But that doesn’t happen now. Instead, even the chief justice of the state Supreme Court willingly enters into the statewide conspiracy to undermine the law that protects our borders.
One wonders if this isn’t a violation of her oath to uphold the law? Do judges in California only enforce the laws of which they approve and encourage the violation of laws with which they disagree? Isn’t this taking us pretty far down the road to the complete abandonment of the rule of law?

I guess you have to be a leftist, an intellectual or an intellectual leftist to be in agreement with the theory that ignoring immigration law and encouraging future violation of the law will benefit everyone in the long run.

http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelReagan.../08/id/783298/

FBI needs to investigate any judge, justice or public official of any kind who is defending illegal aliens, sanctuary cities or making up these stories about where a violator can or cannot be arrested by ICE. I don't mean checking their Facebook page. I mean investigating for bribes and graft from the drug cartels behind these absurdities to protect the people who run their drug operations in the United States.