Staff Reports
In the latest episode of “Let’s Pretend We Know Better Than the Courts”, a state judge in Wisconsin seems to have forgotten the age-old rule that federal law trumps state whims. The judge in question has allegedly taken it upon herself to hide an illegal immigrant facing some serious accusations, like assault, from federal authorities. That’s some pretty high-stakes hide and seek! One might wonder, is she auditioning for a role as Robin Hood or just aiming for the most misguided act of heroism award?
It’s a curious situation indeed. This judge appeared to think she had a magical cloak of invisibility to cast over someone the federal law was keen on having a little chat with. Now, one can’t help but chuckle at the notion that this court official believed it was within her scope to decide which parts of the Constitution are open to pick-and-choose like a buffet line. Spoiler alert: it’s not.
Now, bears questioning, where do some folks get the idea that defying federal law is a righteous act of civil disobedience? It seems a bit like deciding stop signs are merely suggestions—only good comes of proper adherence. There’s a process for change, one that’s well-laid out by the Founders, and it involves more than a mere wave of idealistic disobedience. If there’s a real itch to see immigration laws changed, perhaps it’s time for Congress to roll up its sleeves and put amendments on the docket, rather than playing chess with lower court judges.
Intimidation by laws? Seems this judge may have taken a page out of fiction rather than the Constitution. A sign outside her courtroom requests that any lawyer aware of someone feeling unsafe attending court to notify them. It sounds almost preemptive, as if the stage is being set for something grand—a twist ending, maybe? But what truly fails to meet the mark is her blatant attempt to obstruct, stepping into the fray without the armor of constitutional backing.
One must also ponder the Democratic viewpoint, applauding this kind of behavior as some sort of societal good deed. When the legal compass spins wildly, claiming the moral high ground becomes precarious. Civil disobedience has its place, but when rules are conveniently ignored for self-righteous narratives, well, what we’re left with isn’t justice, it’s just chaos. This isn’t precisely the kind of leadership or ethical practice that screams confidence in the rule of law, is it? Time for a reality check, and perhaps, just perhaps, a refresher course in the Constitution for certain judicial enthusiasts.
