Judge Eats Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Access Words

Kia Franklin

Judge Eats Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Access Words

Judge John R. Downey recently asked that his name be withdrawn from nomination to the Appellate Court, after his in-court statements about immigrants’ rights to access the court came under scrutiny during nomination hearings. He also expressed that his views have changed since he made those statements.

In a workers’ comp case brought by the estate of an undocumented immigrant who was killed in a traffic incident, Judge Downey inquired about the man’s immigration status, stating that “only people legally allowed in the United States can make use of our court system.” Transcripts from two divorce hearings in 2002 also revealed statements that he would not hear any case brought by an illegal immigrant. This article gives more detail.

In a letter responding to the renewed attention and criticism over these statements, Judge Downey wrote: “My views of this issue have evolved. I would like to state unequivocally that it is my position that all people have the right to access our courts to seek redress for legal injury.”

Well, that’s good. We have enough folks out there fighting to curtail the rights of immigrants and to obstruct access to the court system.

For more information on Civil Justice and Access to the Courts for Immigrants, visit the Brennan Center for Justice.

Posted at 10:50 AM, Aug 24, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Why on earth would anyone give illegal immigrants any rights? They have lost their rights by their criminality. To generate lawyer fees, and only to generate lawyer fees.

What next? Animals get standing to sue.

The criminal cult enterprise runs a tight ship. Any casual statement that even hints at the loss of lawyer jobs must result in the personal destruction of the lawyer. If illegal aliens have fewer rights to sue, there will be fewer lawyer jobs, as each claim employs three lawyers. Illegal aliens are filling our courts as plaintiffs, and as defendants. Great source of business.

There is zero tolerance for even the think out loud suggestion. This judge allowed the case to proceed, and was just wondering out loud if his immigration status had any civil procedure implication. Don't even think about limiting lawyer jobs. That is the message from the article.

Under other circumstances, the lawyer gets enriched with the defendant's commission of the slightest infraction of any regulation or even policy manual because it represents negligence per se, and a lawyer gotcha. In this case, a serious crime by the alien is deemed irrelevant. Its passing mention by a judge in answer to a lawyer objection ends the judge career.

This is the irony. Why hire an illegal alien at all? To avoid the waking nightmare that is the American employee, a vector for devastating lawyer infestation into the work site.

If illegal aliens will become vectors for lawyer infestation as well, the irony is that these rights will end their added value to the employer. The employment lawyer will end illegal immigration by the work of the left wing ideologues such as those at the Brennan Center. If you hate immigrants, and want to effectively shut the border, forget the $billions for fences. Give a few $mils to the Brennan Center. They will take down the entire illegal immigration employment infrastructure. Their lawyer ilk did a great job of taking out manufacturing, the American family, crime victims, and robust economic growth.

"What next? Animals get standing to sue."

SC, I hope and pray you are not implying that people who are not documented but work and pay taxes in this country (which, geographically speaking, used to be some of these same people's homeland, until it was stolen), thereby contributing to its wealth, and are otherwise law abiding individuals are a step away from animals. If so, that's disgusting and beyond disrespectful and I have nothing else to say about it.

Kia: My animal standing remark was serious, and not flippant. Your reply is conventional but politically incorrect. You have not yet enlightened yourself as to how speciesistic it is. There is a strong lawyer movement to give animals standing. It has begun in earnest in Europe. There, to start, simians will get standing. DNA wise, this makes sense, as much sense as any standing in any tort action. All tort actions are scams, why not permit animals standing? They are the best lawyer clients to have, unable to speak.

I do not compare illegal aliens to animals. Nor do I believe that calling someone an animal is an insult, unless one harbors a speciesist bias. You have to rethink your reflexive taking of offense at the word, animal, because it reflects an irrational bias and moralizing that is not permitted to the lawyer.

It also threatens the CCE rent seeking train. You have to watch your language or face the potential for personal destruction this judge did. Within a decade, I predict, a remark such as yours, if made from the bench, will get the judge in hot water.

In your "... until it was stolen," are you referring to the US Southwest? I may argue that humans stole the territory from and eradicated the Mastodons, the saber toothed tigers, and the huge bison that inhabited it for millions of years. I am curious if you feel the Southwest should be returned to Mexico, like stolen property. If you believe that, explain why it should not be returned to the bison and the bear.

Be honest about your sincere feeling. That idea is really left wing, and it would well locate you on the political map of extremism.