HARTFORD, CT - The radical Democrats in the Connecticut legislature just passed SB 397, a bill that is supposed to “rein in ICE.”
In Connecticut, Democrats must do whatever they can to protect criminals and tie the hands of law enforcement. They may want to check with their fellow radicals in California, however, where a provision similar to the one passed in the Connecticut legislature was just blocked by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
That provision in the Connecticut bill, hilariously titled “An Act Concerning Democracy and Government Accountability,” bans the use of facial coverings when "peace officers" are interacting with the public and performing their duties, and also applies to federal law enforcement officers, i.e., ICE agents.
In the Ninth Circuit ruling, the court, in a 3-0 decision, permanently blocked California’s mask ban on federal agents, ruling it likely violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Simply put, a lowly state like Connecticut can’t order the federal government around.
The Ninth Circuit held that California’s law “purports to override the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers.”
The party of “No Kings” has surely adopted dictatorial tendencies.
Ironically, Connecticut Democrats passed SB 397 on the same day the Ninth Circuit told California to take its pail and shovel and go home, ruling that state restrictions on the federal government are unconstitutional. It can be expected that Connecticut will eventually be given the same marching orders.
In November, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit challenging California’s measure, arguing it would threaten the safety of agents facing harassment, doxing, and violence. They further claimed that the law violated the Supremacy Clause and that California was attempting to directly regulate the federal government. The panel issued an injunction blocking the measure pending appeal after previously issuing a temporary administrative injunction to block implementation of the measure, CBS News reported.
“We conclude that [section] 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” the ruling reads. “The Supremacy Clause forbids the States from enforcing such legislation. The United States is therefore likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause claim, and the other preliminary injunction factors also weigh in its favor. Thus, we grant the motion for an injunction pending appeal.”
Connecticut’s bill, which will also likely go down in flames, also allows residents to sue federal law enforcement officials and agencies in state court, and defines churches, schools, and hospitals as so-called “protected areas” where ICE is (allegedly) banned from carrying out its duties without a judicial warrant, NBC Connecticut reported.
Republicans slammed the Democrats’ attempt to undermine the federal government for nothing more than a political ploy.
“Why are we doing this other than passing a bill that sounds good politically for them, and frankly is nothing more than a guise–an anti-cop bill,” Minority Leader State Sen. Stephen Harding said.
Anti-cop–that’s the definition of Connecticut Democrats.
Democratic State Sen. Saud Anwar, who last fall wished death upon President Trump during a “No Kings” protest, whined that ICE removing illegal aliens, including violent criminals, from the country, has “instilled a fear into communities across our state that is crippling and cruel.”
“We’re taking action to make sure federal law enforcement has to follow the same rules that state and local police do. We’re making sure our local residents who are mistreated have recourse against those mistreating them. Against a backdrop of lawless violence and widespread discrimination, this bill tells Connecticut residents their safety is paramount,” Anwar said in a statement.
“Lawless violence?” Sounds like any day of the week in Hartford or New Haven. “Residents who are mistreated?” Like paying the second-highest electricity rates in the country? Like living in one of the ten most expensive states in the country, with a cost of living 21% higher than the national average, thanks to one-party (Democrat) rule?
We look forward to a federal court telling Connecticut Democrats to stick their mask ban where the sun doesn’t shine.
Comments