Radical Federal Judge Rules It ‘Unconstitutional’ For Florida To Enforce Immigration Law
A federal judge on Tuesday struck down parts of a Florida law aimed at banning local governments from establishing sanctuary city policies, rules enacted by rogue mayors that allow illegal aliens to receive protection from the federal enforcement of immigration law.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom said the law — signed and championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) — violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because it was adopted with discriminatory motives, is racially motivated, and has the support of hate groups.
Bloom appears to be a political activist as well, making strong statements against the proposed legislation and how she believes it relates to the supposed racism of police officers.
“Upon review of the evidence described above, the Court concludes that SB 168’s historical background demonstrates a clear and ongoing pattern of racial discrimination during law enforcement encounters, which disproportionately affects Hispanic and black individuals,” said Bloom.
“Allowing anti-immigrant hate groups that overtly promote xenophobic, nationalist, racist ideologies to be intimately involved in a bill’s legislative process is a significant departure from procedural norms,” Bloom wrote in the September 21 ruling. “This involvement strongly suggests that the Legislature enacted SB 168 to promote and ratify the racist views of these advocacy groups.”
The judge also seemingly suggested that if a law may disproportionately affect Latino people it is now considered unconstitutional.
“These discriminatory motives are made evident from the historical and ongoing pattern of racial discrimination by law enforcement and the growing reliance on an immigrant threat narrative to justify the enactment of anti-immigrant legislation across the nation,” wrote Bloom.
Rulings like that of Bloom have concerned many about a potential rise of judicial supremacy in the United States, that is to say, allegiance to the idea that the courts get the final say on any public issue — and the judge’s ruling thus determines what is constitutionally correct.
Recent decisions by Bloom and other judges call attention to one of Justice Antonin Scalia’s final public speeches before his death, when he rhetorically asked, “Do you think the American people would ever have ratified the Constitution if they had been told ‘the meaning of this document shall be whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is’?”
Support Big League Politics by making a donation today. You can also donate via PayPal, Venmo or donate crypto. Your support helps us take on the powerful and report the truth that the mainstream media wants to silence.