You are here: Home / 2009 / April / Archives for 22nd

Gov. Brewer Taps Illegal Immigration Advocate To Help Select Next Justice of Arizona Supreme Court

April 22, 2009 By 18 Comments

Recently, an opening on the AZ Supreme Court was created by Chief Justice McGregor’s retirement announcement.  This opening on the Supreme Court gives conservatives their first chance during the Brewer administration to begin moving the Arizona Supreme Court to the right by replacing a liberal justice with a conservative justice.

Gov. Brewer, however, is helping to keep the Court stocked with liberal justices by appointing Michael Sillyman, an illegal immigration advocate and liberal democrat, to the Commission that will select the next Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court.

In Arizona, judges are selected using the following process:  a Commission, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, selects a slate of nominees for the open judgeship,  The Governor is then required to appoint the new judge from this slate of nominees.  Thus, if the Commission that selects the nominees is stacked with liberals, the commission will send the Governor a list of liberal nominees and the Governor will be forced to select the new judge from the list of liberals.

Michael Sillyman, Gov. Brewer’s newest appointment to the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, is a liberal democrat that represented the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) in its unsucessful effort to block Prop 200 in 2004.  Mr. Sillyman is also a donor to Janet Napolitano, Terry Goddard, and Al Gore.  This appointment is outrageous.  A Republican Governor should appoint conservatives to this commission, not radical liberal democrats.  Under the rules governing appointments, Gov. Brewer could have selected a conservative Republican for the slot but instead decided to appoint an illegal immigration advocate.

The good news is, while the Gov. Brewer has appointed Mr. Sillyman, the Senate has yet to confirm this nominee.  This nominee is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Hopefully, Republican Judiciary committee members, Russell Pierce, Jonathan Paton, John Huppenthal, and Chuck Gray will reject this nominee.  It would be hard to believe that Russell Pierce would not stop this nominee because this nominee represents everything he has spent years fighting.

Also, Mr. Silyman is not the only bad appointee that Gov. Brewer has sent to the AZ Senate.  In addition to Mr. Sillyman, Gov. Brewer has appointed two other liberal (Ronald Reinstein and Karen Smith) to the Commission that select judges in Maricopa County.  Retired Judge Reinstein was considered one of the most liberal judges during his years on the Court.  Karen Smith was Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of Water during the Napolitano administration and is a donor to Napolitano.    With Republican appointments like this to the commissions that select judges, it is no wonder that most of the judges in this state are liberals.  Hopefully, one day, Arizona will have a Republican governor and a Republican Senate willing to appoint conservative and not just hand the Courts to the liberals.

Filed Under: Illegal Immigration, Judicial, State Government

Chris Simcox Announces for US Senate

April 22, 2009 By 13 Comments

This morning, Chris Simcox announced his bid for the U.S. Senate representing Arizona.

Simcox will challenge incumbent Senator John McCain in the 2010 Republican Primary.

This announcement occurred on the State Capitol lawn at 11:30 AM.

Representative Carl Seel and Senator Jack Harper introduced Simcox who was surrounded by his family and supporters.

YouTube Preview Image
Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections

Federal Grab of Waters of the US: Earth Day Greening of Law

April 22, 2009 By 4 Comments

by Gayle Plato

The auspicious moment arrived this morning, of a pseudo-religious movement of the left- Earth Day. My six year old jumped for joy as he was told to wear green and comply. You’d have thought it was Halloween. But then, there’s something a bit more spooky in the shadows of the Green grassy knolls of liberal projection.

But the costumes dressing up this moment cannot compete with the dressing down any conservative questioning some Green logic gets. Like any reality, there are subtle elements to the debate. Saving the world one lib bulb at a time sounds so cool, and we all like being able to help out. But then the mercury inside the new bulb blows out and you’re a personal superfund site, with your six year old now in a scrub down from the likes of the movie Silkwood. How green is the Valley when our new fangled ways poison more than the old?

This week, the trend is to tell us that the water supply of the west is drying up. The Colorado River is disappearing, all of us need to conserve, and it’s a matter of national security as the local regulation is not keeping poisons out of the supply. Um, wait a minute; is this another example of a need to ‘streamline’ controls? You know the states; they are not very good at doing any of the daily management anyway. Probably, we need the Environmental Protection Agency, with the help of Department of Homeland Security to come in and say that all water supplies are going to be federally managed.

Enter the new and shiny bill: Text of S.787: Clean Water Restoration Act, started by Russ Feingold in the Senate. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-787)

This is a newer version of H.R. 2421 that died last session. The Bush administration was attacked online, and in much green news as this is called clean water legislation. It’s not easy being green when your rightward lean lends to a critical question. Everyone, read this bill on Earth Day, and think about how federal control happens. It’s Kumbayah with your Kindergartener as they tell you to dim your lights and hug MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. It’s cute storybooks written with slogans about keeping the water clean, with a nifty character that looks like a rain drop tele-tubbie my son brought home. Aww.

Currently, ground water and surface waters are regulated very differently. Some waters are considered ‘of the United States’ and some are not. This bill, in affect, is trying extend the definition of United States water. The current definition of U.S. waters relates to navigable waters. This new law includes all intra-states, and basically lists literally every major puddle and bigger. Virtually any water is under regulated U.S. water. If correct, even a little creek flowing across your property or in your subdivision, is under United States control. Try and get a permit as a builder when this law goes real time.

The water of the U.S. means subject to federal law, is navigable water ways and that is the original intent. The Salt or Gila are navigable. The new writing means that environmentalist can challenge ANY WATER in the U.S. Unless there is a de-minimus definition to it, still allowing state primacy, then there is no stopping all water being controlled. All in the name of Green.

The economy will dictate the entire issue of federalization of state programs. So it goes, one drop at a time.

There is a change of definition to control. This is not regulation- it is about CONTROL. Water is EVERYTHING: a power grab right through the drinking fountain, with a dancing raindrop as the poster child. 

More later as I keep investigating this, but for now I have to dim the lights as my son is getting home from Earth Day.

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Environment

Napolitano says illegal border crossing isn’t a crime; Sen. Sessions demands correction

April 22, 2009 By 5 Comments

Napolitano said the following during an interview with Larry King:

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

This is wrong because crossing the border illegally is a criminal misdemeanor. 8 USC Sec. 1325(a) says that crossing the border illegally is punishable by up to six months in prison for the first offense. Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Jeff Sessions is demanding a public correction of her statement.

Senator Jeff Sessions has issued the following statement demanding a correction:

It is breathtaking that a cabinet secretary, bestowed by the public with the responsibility to protect our nation’s borders, could be ignorant of the undisputable fact that it is a violation of the criminal code to enter our country illegally. 8 U.S.C. 1325(a), which has been in effect for decades and codified in its current form since 1991, is unambiguous that doing so is a crime. This is one of the most baffling statements from a high government official I have ever heard. …

… Sec. Napolitano must swiftly, clearly, and unambiguously correct her comments on this matter to set the record straight.

Michelle Malkin notes there is now a Fire Napolitano website.

It is frustrating to those of us in Arizona who have watched Napolitano’s record of incompetence for years, elected only due to the liberal media, not any kind of an impressive record. She is frankly an embarrassment to those of us in Arizona now she’s at the national level.

Filed Under: Border, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Immigration

Excessive English Language Learner requirements implemented under Napolitano’s legal representation

April 22, 2009 By 6 Comments

By now, you’ve all heard of Flores v. Arizona, which is currently being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a lawsuit brought in 1992 by the parents of Spanish-speaking children in Nogales, AZ, alleging that their civil rights were violated because the state wasn’t providing adequate education for their language difficulties (note – this lawsuit has been a sore spot because no doubt a large percentage of these students are illegal immigrants or the children of illegal immigrants, and funding illegal immigrants has contributed to the state’s economic crisis). The lawsuit was filed against the state – namely the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who was represented by the Attorney General’s Office.

In 2000, federal district court judge Alfredo Marquez, known for being an activist left wing judge, ruled that there was not enough funding. Instead of appealing the decision, the state worked out terms of a consent decree with the plaintiffs that required ALL of Arizona’s – not just Nogales where there are a higher level of Spanish-speakers – to implement a high level of school programs (requiring a higher level of funding) for Spanish-speaking students. The AZ Department of Education produced a cost analysis shortly afterwards predicting the cost of these programs would cost up to $4,600 per ELL student.

Since then, the state legislature has tried repeatedly to increase funding for ELL. Unfortunately, Judge Marquez continues to rule that the additional funding isn’t enough. We wonder how much Arizona has spent on this issue since the lawsuit was originally initiated in 1992. Washington Legal Foundation characterizes it as one federal district court judge usurping the role of the legislature and running Arizona’s school policy for years. The law doesn’t define what “appropriate” education means, Marquez should be deciding cases based on what the law says, not how he decides to define it. Currently, Arizona spends $430 extra per year on each ELL student – still not enough for Judge Marquez, who has threatened to put legislative leaders in jail! Judge Raner Collins has since taken over the case, following in the footsteps of Judge Marquez against the state.

Clearly, Napolitano did a poor job representing the state as Attorney General in this lawsuit. The onerous terms of the consent decree, which then-Superintendent of Schools Lisa Graham Keegan signed on behalf of the state in 2000, should have NEVER forced these excessive requirements on other cities and towns around Arizona. The decision should have been appealed in 2000. Thanks, Napolitano, during these times of economic crisis, your legacy lives on.

Filed Under: Illegal Aliens, Illegal Immigration, State Budget, State Government