The federal court decision striking down Biden’s asylum rule for migrants is just the latest example of America not being able to function because of proliferating court decisions that block government actions. Legal review is necessary, but it should be done in moderation. Many of these contradictory decisions are the result of forum shopping where litigants choose a court because of the judge’s prejudices.
The Washington Post reported:
A federal judge in California on Tuesday struck down the Biden administration’s temporary restrictions on migrants seeking asylum, ruling that the government’s plan to reduce illegal crossings on the southern border violated federal law.
This is only the most recent example of the government being unable to function because of interference by the courts. The most egregious example is the Supreme Court, which has reversed itself on abortion and made significant changes to a number of other laws, including affirmative action. By interfering in an unpredictable way with government functions the courts have undermined confidence in their operation and trustworthiness.
Years ago Supreme Court justices were selected because they were good, honest men who were good lawyers. Now they are chosen for their political prejudices. The low quality of judges, particularly on the Supreme Court, has shamed the whole legal system. These are men and women without honor, although they insist on being called “honorable.” They are not honorable. They are gutless pawns manipulated by political machinations.
There are many good lawyers in America, but the good people don’t want to get caught up in a corrupt political system. So, we get those who are part of the corrupt network.
In particular I dislike this decision because I think the US treatment of amnesty is a mess. Most of the people applying for amnesty don’t deserve it, but those who do not are allowed into the US indefinitely awaiting a hearing on their amnesty claim. Once again, the courts are unable to do their duty and decide these cases speedily.
When I was a vice consul issuing US visas in Sao Paulo, Brazil, I issued thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of visas. Only one person requested asylum after reaching the US, but his case took perhaps 100 times more time and effort than a normal case. There were many more forms to fill out, questions to be answered. If one case was so demanding, I can’t imagine how onerous the workload is for the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers recently crossing the southern border. The system is broken, and the recent court decision reinstating recent asylum requests is an example of a legal system out of control.