ACLU Fights to Save 'Sanctuary' Policy Protecting Illegal Aliens

Last week the stakes were raised in the battle over illegal immigration when California Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu allowed the ACLU of Southern California to intervene on behalf of illegal immigrants and others in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department over “Special Order 40.” You will recall that Special Order 40 is a set of policies and procedures that prevents police officers from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status and communicating freely with federal immigration officials.

The ACLU contends that illegal immigrants ought to be able to congregate on street corners seeking illegal jobs without fear of police intervention. (Can you believe they actually intend to advance this argument in a court of law?!) Judicial Watch, of course, believes federal immigration laws must be enforced. We want the court to grant an injunction preventing the LAPD from spending any additional taxpayer funds in carrying out or enforcing Special Order 40.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU is representing Break the Cycle, Los Jornaleros, El Comite de Jornaleros, and El Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de California. As Judicial Watch noted in recent court filings, these organizations have all admitted they provide assistance to illegal aliens, and that their members fear discovery of their illegal status. Obviously, they have a vested interest in the continuation LAPD’s politically correct “sanctuary” policy. It provides them safe cover to continue to live in the United States illegally without fear of police intervention.

The Special Order 40 lawsuit is one component of a larger campaign by Judicial Watch to help enforce our nation’s immigration laws — a campaign that has obviously aroused the interest of the ultra-leftist ACLU. The ACLU and the open borders crowd are very worried about Judicial Watch’s persistence in challenging local officials who arrogantly violate federal immigration laws. They should be worried. In the coming months, we plan to turn up the pressure on local officials who put illegal immigrants above the rule of law.

Scandal-Ridden Terry McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton

Prompted by a few trial balloons floated by the Clinton camp, some in the media have speculated recently that Hillary may not run for president. They say the New York senator now has her eyes on the Senate Majority Leader position, where she feels she may be able to do the most good. Don’t buy it. She will run. And if you don’t believe me, just ask former DNC Chairman and Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe.

Last week The Hill newspaper reported that “McAuliffe has told business associates and Democratic donors that he will chair Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D.-N.Y.) presidential campaign next year.” McAuliffe was a little more guarded when asked directly about his planned participation in a Clinton candidacy, but did acknowledge that he would play a “huge role” in the campaign should it materialize.

It will materialize.

The Hill speculates there is a good chance the Clinton campaign will have $100 million in the bank before the Iowa caucuses in January 2008, far more than any of her potential rivals. One Democratic operative said, “She’s got a full operation,” and that her campaign is a “certainty.”

McAuliffe, for his part, is clearly attempting to jockey for position amongst a bevy of Clinton fundraising operatives who want a piece of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Given his long and sordid history with the Clintons, he should have the inside track.

McAuliffe allegedly participated in the Clinton administration’s infamous scheme to sell trade mission seats in exchange for campaign contributions. He also helped broker some seemingly shady deals between Gary Winnick, CEO of Global Crossing, the telecommunications giant that went belly-up in 2002, and President Clinton. On one occasion McAuliffe set up a golfing trip between Winnick and Clinton. Winnick donated $1 million to the Clinton Presidential Library and subsequently received a $400 million Pentagon contract from the Clinton administration. The contract was later canceled by the Bush Administration.

(Incidentally, McAuliffe was suspected of participating in an insider trading scheme involving Global Crossing. He turned a $100,000 initial investment in the company into $18 million in less than a year and a half-a nifty 18,000% profit.)

Judicial Watch also sued McAuliffe over his illegal million-dollar plus mortgage guarantee for the Clintons’ house in Chappaqua, N.Y. He subsequently backed out of the deal.

Out of power for six years now, the corrupt Clinton gang is salivating at the possibility of moving back into the White House in 2009.

Judicial Ethics in the Spotlight

One month after Judicial Watch exposed Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest in the government’s anti-terrorism wiretapping case judicial misconduct continues to make headlines.

This according to the September 20 edition of the Washington Post: “The federal judiciary moved to defuse congressional concerns over judicial ethics yesterday, announcing that judges may not accept expense-paid trips to privately funded seminars unless the sponsors first disclose their donors.”

The idea here, obviously, is transparency. Under the new rules, it is still permissible for an organization to subsidize a judge’s participation in an educational seminar. But the organization must first report its funding sources for posting on the Internet by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The judge, meanwhile, has 30-days to disclose his participation in the seminar. Leftists had been complaining that conservative-oriented educational groups, funded by “corporate interests,” ran seminars which included judges and academics discussing legal issues. This is not the biggest ethics issue out there, and the seminars will continue even under the new rules.

The Post also called attention to a new report issued this week indicating that judges failed to properly investigate complaints of misconduct by their colleagues in five of 17 “high visibility cases” over a five-year period. “We … find the mishandling of five such cases out of 17 — an error rate close to 30% — far too high,” the report concluded.

Released by a panel headed by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, the report makes specific mention of a complaint filed by Judicial Watch against then-chief circuit judge, Boyce F. Martin Jr., who allegedly manipulated court processes in an affirmative action case to achieve the outcome he desired. Judge Martin’s actions resulted in two conservative (and presumably anti-affirmative action) judges not being able to be part of the en banc panel that considered the case. The appellate court ruled 5-4 in favor of the affirmative action polices, and it is clear the outcome would have been different if not for the chief judge keeping two more conservative votes off the case.

Despite a judicial finding that Judge Martin’s actions “raise an inference that judicial misconduct has occurred,” he escaped punishment.

The Breyer report found significant problems with how Judicial Watch’s complaint was managed. “The public would have benefited from an investigation and resolution of this highly visible controversy,” the report concluded. We agree. We asked for a full hearing, which the Breyer report agreed should have been granted. (It sure is something that Judge Martin would have wanted!) Yet, despite the finding of misconduct as a result of our complaint, no real punishment occurred, to which we also objected. The Breyer report seemed to agree with us on that point as well.

It is good to see some internal “watchdogging” by the judiciary in the Breyer report, but I wonder if this report would have been issued if not for the pressure by Judicial Watch and some in Congress for strong judicial ethics enforcement. For our part, we will keep the pressure on.