Federal judges have just told the state of California to release 43,000 prisoners due to prison overcrowding. Lets leave aside, for the moment, that the Democrats in the Legislature have caused this overcrowding because they have not allowed the construction of any new prisons in over 15 years (the Democrats have been waiting for this order for that entire time, since they dont think that criminals should be in prison). That is the real cause of this overcrowding. But this is a time to make lemonade out of this federally imposed lemon.
For years, the federal judiciary has been pushing itself more and more into the operations of state government. Tossing out the 1994 initiative prohibiting payment of welfare to illegals (and thus resulting in California having the largest welfare roles in thenation), telling how to spend our money, forcing us to provide better medical care to prisoners than most law abiding citizens receive, dictating spending, welfare and medical policies because some left wing interest group doesnt like the policy choices the state has made. The courts have turned the principle of federalism on its ear, intruding more and more into state operations, and imposing their conception of correct policy under the guise of constitutional mandate. This is judicial activism at its worst.
Operation of state prisons is a state function, not a federal one. A court cannot conclude, nor can any federal law say, that our prisons constitute cruel and unusual punishment (which is the only constitutional basis for intrusion into state decisions in this area) at any level. What with state of the art weight rooms, cable television, decent (although not five star hotel) food, and decent housing, prisoners have a place to live and eat in relative comfort (compared to some people living on the outside) while we keep them away from the rest of us during their sentence. The only danger they face is from each other, really bad people, that is people who have no respect for themselves, their neighbors, or for the rules, can be difficult to live with, without question, but that cannot be avoided. Prison is for bad people, to keep bad people away from good people so that the bad people cant hurt the good ones.
So what should the state do with this federal order? Tell the judges we wont do it, we will not let these bad guys go, ever. This order is the exact order that needs to be resisted to re-establish a sense of federalism, that is, a respect for the rights of the state v. federal government that was established in our Constitution, and which has been lost for many years. If the Governor said no, California wont let these prisoners go, what would the judges do? Try to arrest the Governor? They cant, they dont have guns. US Marshalls? I doubt it. It would be an interesting standoff between the CHP and the Marshalls. Ask Obama to step in? Obama would have to call out the Army to demand the release of these prisoners. Can you imagine a more interesting scenario? Finally, the Democrats would be shown for the soft on crime types that they are. The Governor would be standing up for the law abiding citizens of California. Obama would be ordering the Army to go to the prisons and let the bad guys go. It would be the perfect policy, political, and dramatic scenario to show exactly why federalism is an important constitutional principle. We should run our prisons, not some unelected federal judge. Who would win the political and public relations fight in that case? The judges would be shown for the leftist, and impotent fools, they really are.
Will it happen? It should, but it probably wont. This administration doesnt have the guts. The federal judges are clearly wrong. There is nothing wrong with our prisons. These judges are hell bent (literally) on putting Californians in harms way. The Governor took an oath to protect us and the Constitution. These judges have clearly put California citizens and constitutional principles at risk. It is the duty of the Governor to resist this clearly illegal order. It would be good for Californians, it would be good for the Constitution, and it would be good for him to do so. Does he have the internal fortitude to make history? We will see.