Judicial Activism

Today in Colorado, criminals can celebrate.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled against a ballot initiative that could have denied services to illegal aliens.

The measure was snonsored by Defend Colorado Now, and sounds quite reasonable:

The measure would not stop the state from paying for federally mandated services such as public education or emergency medical care. But Elbel has said it would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving welfare and in-state college tuition.

And the logic or lack thereof, behind the ruling:

...[it] violates a state constitutional requirement that initiatives deal with only one subject, the court said in a 5-2 opinion.

The measure aimed to decrease public spending for the welfare of illegal immigrants in Colorado and restrict access to administrative services, the ruling said.

“Because we determine these purposes are unrelated, we conclude they comprise multiple subjects connected only by a broad and overarching theme,” the ruling said.

It is one helluva stretch to argue that, I don't know what happened to intellectual honesty in some of our highest courts. Such reasoning could argue a glass of water deals with multiple subjects: the glass, and the water.

In light of this, the word of the day may describe the feeling: Billingsgate.

To go out on a limb, one could argue such activism could pre-emptively stop a constitutional amendment contrary to the court's opinion.


**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.