Supremes overturn much of Arizona immigration law
Reading the Supreme Court’s decision largely overturning the Arizona immigration law, which served as the model for much of Georgia’s immigration law as well….
Court notes that “Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.” That suggests President Obama was well within his constitutional powers with his mini-DREAM act order last week.
The majority opinion states:
“It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States….
Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service.”
The Court tossed an Arizona provision making it a state crime to be in Arizona in violation of federal immigration law. It also threw out a provision making it illegal for an illegal immigrant to seek work in Arizona.
It also tossed Section 6 of the Arizona law, which as Justice Kennedy notes in his majority opinion “authorizes officers to arrest without a warrant a person ‘the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States,’” or in other words is here illegally.
“If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent,” Kennedy writes. “… This would allow the state to achieve its own immigration policy. The result could be unnecessary harassment
of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed.”
The sole surviving section of the law requires state law enforcement to check the immigration status of everybody it takes into custody. And that part of the law may stand only for the time being. The justices want to see how that part of the law actually works in practice, but they made it clear that they are dubious that it will withstand future constitutional scrutiny.
For example, Kennedy notes the case of someone who is stopped for a jaywalking violation. If that person is detained in jail while his or her immigration status is checked — something that would not happen for a simple jaywalking case — such prolonged detention would violate the Constitution.
It was a 5-3 decision, with Justice Kagan recusing herself because she was involved in the case in her previous job as solicitor general. The three justices in the minority were Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
Scalia’s dissent is quite broad to the point of radical. He begins by complaining that the majority opinion “deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there,” in effect endorsing the novel concept that states have a constitutional right to their own immigration policies independent of that of the federal government.
“Even in its international relations, the federal government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent states, who have their own sovereign powers,” Scalia writes.
Just as remarkably, Scalia takes the opportunity to attack Obama’s announcement last week that illegal immigrants brought here as children will not be deported, a topic not at issue in this case.
“The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement.”
Neither Thomas nor Alito embrace Scalia’s extremism in their own dissents.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
487 comments Add your comment
josef
June 25th, 2012
11:50 am
Doggone
I would go with you on the free aspect…same with the copy of the birth certificate…I feel the same way about the vaccination-dental-vision document required for school registration…
Butch Cassidy
June 25th, 2012
11:50 am
Ben Shockley – “Any idea how many $$$ in medical bills are run up by illegals at emergency rooms that they have no intention of paying?”
Any idea how many $$$ in medical bills are run up by everyone without insurance at emergency rooms that they have no intention of paying.
I never would have figured you for a supporter of Obamacare Ben.
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
11:51 am
“Many like Ben want the “benefits” from the illegals ”
As long as we’re making stuff up, why don’t you tell the group which benefits it is that I’m enjoying and when I said I’d be unable/unwilling to forego said “benefits”?
Thanks in advance.
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
11:51 am
or how much of infrastructure(roads, highways, bridge), protection(fire/police), oreducationthey “use” without ever paying for.I’ll give you partial credit on police/fire, but as to the other two. If they drive, they buy gas. If they buy gas, then they pay gas taxes. Gas taxes are the primary source for infrastructure funding as it currently stands. Education is paid for primarily by property taxes. If those illegals rent/own homes, then they are paying towards property taxes in some form or fashion. Therefore, they are paying for education.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
11:51 am
B. Shockley — “LMAO!!! You libs are doing the Snoopy Happy Dance over a SCOTUS decision that guarantees illegal immigration will continue unabated!”
No, we’re doing the Snoopy Happy Dance over a SCOTUS decision that overturned a poorly-written and poorly-conceived idea.
Again, do try to find a liberal poster here who has advocated *for* illegal immigration.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
June 25th, 2012
11:51 am
And I was so looking forward to making a Citizens Arrest of some Mexican—hopefully a small one.
Paul
June 25th, 2012
11:51 am
“Care to name, specifically, a blogger here who’s said they support illegal immigration?”
LMAO!!! You libs are doing the Snoopy Happy Dance over a SCOTUS decision that guarantees illegal immigration will continue unabated!”
Ben, Ben, Ben…. are you going for a record to see how many words you can post to avoid saying “No, I can’t”?
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
11:51 am
“I never would have figured you for a supporter of Obamacare Ben.”
If you do figure I’m a supporter I guess you aren’t too bright.
Snoopy Happy Dancer
June 25th, 2012
11:51 am
I ♥ illegal immigrants!
Paul
June 25th, 2012
11:52 am
Ben
There’s my sign?
Are you stuck in a 1970s disco?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
11:53 am
B. Shockley — “If you do figure I’m a supporter I guess you aren’t too bright.”
And if you think we’re in support of illegal immigration, then YOU aren’t too bright.
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
11:53 am
Ben
See josef’s comment at 11:46 for your anwer
Thanks, sport
Ahem
June 25th, 2012
11:53 am
The good news in all of this is that Obama still loses in November.
Oscar
June 25th, 2012
11:53 am
neck Convert (R–and proud of it)
June 25th, 2012
11:51 am
And I was so looking forward to making a Citizens Arrest of some Mexican—hopefully a small one
___________
You can still arrest someone that employs an illegal. Or try to, depending on their size.
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
11:53 am
“answer”
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
11:54 am
“are you going for a record to see how many words you can post to avoid saying “No, I can’t”?
Paul, so you libs are opposed to illegal immigration, but you are also opposed to making any attempt to limit it?
LMAO!!!
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 25th, 2012
11:54 am
Ben,
I am doing your “happy dance” because there will not be undue harassment of a fellow human being. Now that this decision has been made, let’s think of constructive ways to solve the problem. You will never get them all out of the country and you shouldn’t. Give them a clear path to citizenship while remaining in the country is the most viable way. Once they have completed that path, welcome them as fellow, law abiding, voting citizens…but it’s the voting part you don’t like, isn’t it?
josef
June 25th, 2012
11:54 am
BEN
Benefits? That cheap burger, that service with a smile in the sit down joint, that substantially lower cost hotel room, cheap chicken from the grocery store, an affordable watermelon for the fourth, just to name a few…
Paulo977
June 25th, 2012
11:54 am
For Carlosgvv
______________________________
http://www.newstaco.com/2011/12/29/immigrants-contribute-billions-into-social-security-medicare/
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
11:55 am
Paul
Vortex alert!!! Vortex alert!!! Vortex alert!!! Vortex alert!!!
Illegal Mexican Immigrants Say...
June 25th, 2012
11:55 am
“Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, free at last.”
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
11:55 am
“And if you think we’re in support of illegal immigration, then YOU aren’t too bright.”
Then why don’t you tell us what you think ought to be done to stop it.
Thanks in advance.
Butch Cassidy
June 25th, 2012
11:55 am
Ben Shockley -”If you do figure I’m a supporter I guess you aren’t too bright.”
Must have been my mistake. I thought you were railing against the costs incurred in the ER by people who can’t afford to pay for service. Since the majority of the costs come from the uninsured, and obamacare was designed to eliminate that problem, I could only surmise that you must be supporter. My bad. I do wonder however, why you think that the cost of ER service should be borne by those that are responsible and actually carry coverage?
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
11:56 am
“Benefits? That cheap burger, that service with a smile in the sit down joint, that substantially lower cost hotel room, cheap chicken from the grocery store, an affordable watermelon for the fourth, just to name a few…”
I’m 50 years old and we’ve had those things all my life, pre-invasion from south of the border.
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
11:57 am
“Since the majority of the costs come from the uninsured, and obamacare was designed to eliminate that problem, I could only surmise that you must be supporter”
This is what happens when people incapable of logic and reason give it a try.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
11:57 am
B. Shockley — “Paul, so you libs are opposed to illegal immigration, but you are also opposed to making any attempt to limit it?”
I’ve posted a proposal for a limiting system here *twice* in the last few weeks, and your conservative friends and allies have been tentatively positive about it. Perhaps you should read more, and prattle on less.
Joseph
June 25th, 2012
11:57 am
A wonderful commercial you libs are sure to hate…
http://www.myfreedompost.com/2012/06/dennys-supports-2nd-amendment-and.html
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
11:58 am
“Perhaps you should read more, and prattle on less.”
I’m just not that into you.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
11:58 am
B. Shockley — “Then why don’t you tell us what you think ought to be done to stop it. Thanks in advance.”
Already posted it twice here in the last two weeks. Catch up to the the rest of the class.
You’re welcome.
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
11:58 am
“Wouldn’t it be fun if all the people who support illegal immigration were forced to host a family of illegals in their home.”
I don’t know if it would be fun, but it is curious that those who basically condone or are even sympathetic to illegal immigration do not practice what they preach by, say, allowing homeless people to just come in and reside in their homes indefinitely as they might wish. It is sort of like some liberals who cry for the federal government to give all kinds of money to the poor but who give next to none of their own money.
godless heathen
June 25th, 2012
11:58 am
BTW, the next time your Driver’s License is renewed in Georgia (after July 1), you are going to have to produce documentation that wasn’t previously required, birth certificate or passport and proof of address. Go to http://www.dds.ga.gov for details.
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
11:58 am
“A wonderful commercial you libs are sure to hate…”
Why?
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
11:59 am
Bro
A face palm for you know who would be much appreciated………
“Muchas gracias”
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
12:00 pm
“BTW, the next time your Driver’s License is renewed in Georgia (after July 1), you are going to have to produce documentation that wasn’t previously required, birth certificate or passport and proof of address”
My license doesn’t expire for 10 years…a LOT can change in 10 years!
Joseph
June 25th, 2012
12:00 pm
Illegal Mexican Immigrants Say…
Until they get stopped for jaywalking… lol…
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
12:00 pm
“My bad. I do wonder however, why you think that the cost of ER service should be borne by those that are responsible and actually carry coverage?”
I think people who get health care at the ER or anywhere else ought o pay for it themselves, eitehr through insurance or out of their pocket.
I know that paying your own way is a radical concept to you libs, but give it a try.
yuzeyurbrane
June 25th, 2012
12:00 pm
Is Scalia related to Mussolini?
Butch Cassidy
June 25th, 2012
12:00 pm
Ben Shockley – “This is what happens when people incapable of logic and reason give it a try.”
Ouch.
ragnar danneskjold
June 25th, 2012
12:00 pm
My preliminary read of the Arizona ruling is that I think it about right. Arizona, as a sovereign entity, may empower its police to inquire whether one is a citizen. That inquiry has relevance if in connection with investigation of a crime, as it directly affects how/whether one qualifies for bail. As to the three sections struck down – criminalizing applying for a job (gee, that sounds like ghetto politics), punishing failure to carry papers, warrantless arrests for deportable offenses – the first two are unworthy laws. I could see an argument in support of the third, but in a world where a warrant can be obtained by telephone, that is not insuperable when the crime supports the warrant.
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
12:00 pm
“Give them a clear path to citizenship” – There already is one.
But requiring a 4 yr degree or 4 yrs in the military w/ no criminal history would be a good path as well.
Joseph
June 25th, 2012
12:01 pm
Doggone/GA:
Becuase of the utter hatred of the 2nd amendment…
209 more days
June 25th, 2012
12:01 pm
Even more important than the Az law ruling, the Eleventh Circuit is the law – making clear that Lake Lanier can indeed be used for water supply for Georgia.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 25th, 2012
12:02 pm
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
11:56 am
If you are really 50 years old, then you have witnessed at least 50 years of your “south of the border invasion”…IF, you had opened your eyes. As far as I can see, they are here to stay, so what do you suggest we do about the situation?
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
12:02 pm
“Already posted it twice here in the last two weeks. Catch up to the the rest of the class.”
Like I already said (try to pay attention) you libs are celebrating defeat of all attempts to curb illegal immigration. To then assert that you really are opposed to illegal immigration is either disinguous or down right stupid, no matter how you try to spin it.
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
12:04 pm
“As far as I can see, they are here to stay, so what do you suggest we do about the situation?”
If we cut off the freebies and make it impossible for them to find work, they’ll find their own way back, just like they found their own way here.
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
12:04 pm
Paul, so you libs
Anyone else here smile whenever our Paul is lumped in with “you libs”?
Butch Cassidy
June 25th, 2012
12:04 pm
Ben Shockley – “I know that paying your own way is a radical concept to you libs, but give it a try.”
Can’t speak for the libs, but I’ve been fully covered since retiring in 2008. Prior to that, My employer provided full coverage for me. I wasn’t taking a stance either way.
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 25th, 2012
12:04 pm
“Even more important than the Az law ruling, the Eleventh Circuit is the law – making clear that Lake Lanier can indeed be used for water supply for Georgia.”
I brought that up earlier but I forgot most of these people don’t shower and use an outhouse.;)
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 25th, 2012
12:05 pm
“Like I already said (try to pay attention) you libs are celebrating defeat of all attempts to curb illegal immigration. To then assert that you really are opposed to illegal immigration is either disinguous or down right stupid, no matter how you try to spin it.”
Preach it!
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
12:05 pm
“Becuase of the utter hatred of the 2nd amendment”
Why would you think we hate the 2nd amendment? I certainly don’t.
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
12:05 pm
A face palm for you know who would be much appreciated………
……………………………………..________……………………
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,………………
………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,…………
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,……..
…………………,?………………………………………………\,…..
………………./…………………………………………………..,}….
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}….
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/…..
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../…..
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./……..
………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/………..
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}………..
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../…………
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../………….
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”……………
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\……………….
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__………..
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,….
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\……………………
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\…………………..
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__..
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“…….
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\……………
……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`\…………..
ragnar danneskjold
June 25th, 2012
12:05 pm
Court seems to have a strong “pro-freedom” bias. That would be a way to read the constraint on Arizona and the constraint on Montana (re corporate political contributions to state campaigns.) Will they do it again in ObamaCare?
Lord Help Us
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
‘“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens,” Gov. Brewer said in a statement. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”’ – Jan Brewer.
Wow…
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
Sfd roe wade was 9-2?
When did that court packing happen?
hiram
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
When 25 illegal aliens with 8 automobiles move into 3 bedroom house next door to Jay, he may view this issue from a different perspective. The above scenario has happened to thousands of Dalton’s residents – the result of the decision of a half dozen Carpet executives, who knew that
they would not be held accountable.
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
scalia is a disgrace to Italians.
The profiling issue is not settled and will end up in lawsuits for profiling.
Lawyer welfare if you will.
Thomas
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
Everyone has an opinion.
Facts are like gravity.
More US citizens have been killed by illegal immigrants than we have lost in our MidEast wars-
interesting- blood on the hands of anyone or just a little fact that should be period under our Code Pink pillow and forgotten?
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
“making clear that Lake Lanier can indeed be used for water supply for Georgia.”
Lake Lanier is IN Georgia for crying out loud..never understood the hoopla on this one.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
B. Shockley — “Like I already said (try to pay attention) you libs are celebrating defeat of all attempts to curb illegal immigration.”
Like I said, you’re full of it. No liberal poster here has said or done any such thing.
“To then assert that you really are opposed to illegal immigration is either disinguous or down right stupid, no matter how you try to spin it.”
Nope. It’s a fact, but I can understand how someone like you would have a problem grasping it. Once again, catch up to the rest of the class, Champ.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/06/15/obama-offers-temporary-reprieve-to-young-illegal-immigrants/?cp=10#comment-984295
You can get started on that, and then, if you can act like an adult and not like a puppy that still soils the floor, we can talk about more advanced issues and where I stand on them. But I will say it once again — you are just plain *wrong* about liberals being in favor of illegal immigration.
josef
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
BEN
Of course you’ve had those things all your life… and you had them because we had a population still willing to do the dirt work for substandard wages and no benefits…and just for the record, the illegal alien farmworker/migrant laborer is a LONG standing thingie…far further back than your 50 years…
and as for your point on support of illegal immigration? Who ever said that? But you don’t allow corporate America to play wink-wink, the government to provide no line in which to get to get the temporary work visa and then all the sudden get holier-than-thou about the fall out from these failures…
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
“Kind of like when they say people who are against abortion should adopt.”
Now that would be a novel idea…
That one’s actually TOO easy to play here. I can remember a coupla times when the antichoicers have come to play, and I’ve asked for a show of hands as to how many have actually adopted anyone like, oh, Mrs. sfd and I (both devoutly pro-reproductive freedom our entire adult lives) have done.
You can hear a pin drop.
I don’t even bother any more. It’s the blog equivalent of an open net goal.
carlosgvv
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
Doggone/GA
The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.
Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
12:06 pm
On another subject, I spent some time this weekend researching the possible grounds the gay community might have for so hating former president Reagan that they would take pictures of themselves flipping birds at his portraits in the WH – because (frankly) it mystified me. He was not a saint, but I really believe he was not a bad man (compared to some other presisents who have held office). Here is what I found and my conclusion:
1) First and foremost, AIDS was being spread at an alarming rate largely because of ill-advised sexual activity (multiple encounters with various partners and without protection) and drug use (and subsequent tainting of the blood supply) – and NOT because of anything Reagan did or did not do.
2) Secondly, the man who discovered the cause of AIDS is on record as saying that a person with a healthy immune system could likely fight off infection many times before finally being infected. He has further stated that the reason AIDS has been so bad in Africa is because many people there, due to malnutrition and improper hygiene, have compromised immune systems. Thus the chances of being infected rise dramatically with frequent sexual encounters and a poor immune system. Gay men in NYC in the 60s, packed in almost like sardines (as described by gays recollecting the practice in a PBS documentary), were having sex in unlit and unsanitary meats trucks – if that can be taken as an indication of the disregard some gays had for safeguarding their own health two decades later.
3) Thirdly, the cause of the virus was not discovered until 1986 and and a definitive understanding of it did not begin to emerge until 2 to 3 years after it was identified as a distinct pathology in 1981, and that there were a lot of open questions about the disease the first several years after it was discovered. Indeed, the names used intially to identify the virus (such as GRID, Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) in the first year or so were associated with homosexuality. Scientists investigating AIDS in the early 80s strongly suspected its transmission was tied to sexual contact or contaminated blood, but there was not definitive proof that these were the only means of transmission. Besides saying he had been “cut off” from discussion and statements about AIDS for “reasons of intra-department politics that I can still not understand fully”, here are some other things the former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has written:
“There were two reasons why it took a while for public health authorities to get a handle on AIDS in the beginning. One was the relatively few trained clinicians and researchers familiar with these rare diseases that were cropping up in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. The second reason was that the first patients with those conditions were homosexual men, most of whom patronized physicians and clinics that were more understanding of the so-called “gay lifestyle.” In making that choice, these men effectively placed themselves outside mainstream clinical medicine and, therefore, they were more difficult to know, to reach, and to help.”
“In spite of charges of “foot-dragging” we learned as much about AIDS in 6 years as we learned about polio in 40 years. Although we acknowledged that there was much we didn’t know about AIDS we had made extraordinary progress in our understanding of the syndrome…Above all we were concerned about how the disease is transmitted. We learned that although the virus had been identified in several body fluids, it seemed to be transmitted only through blood and semen. Researchers were very cautious. For example, Tony Fauci, Director of AIDS Research at NIH, insisted we check out any study that didn’t seem to rule out spread of AIDS by casual contact. But gradually a convincing body of research led us to some important conclusions. It was clear that in spite of all kinds of unsubstantiated claims about mosquitoes and toilet seats, AIDS could be transmitted in only four ways: 1) through sexual contact, 2) through blood contact associated with IV drug use, 3) through pregnancy or delivery contact between an AIDS-infected mother and her infant, and 4) through transfused blood. The most important thing we knew was the deadliest news: if you had AIDS, your chances of surviving the next two or three years were not very good, and the chances of surviving any longer than that almost nil.”
4) Fourthly, while Koop may have been prevented from making statements about AIDS, it is clear that Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services was under no such restriction. Indeed, in 1983, she declared AIDS her department’s “number one priority.” And the CDC was certainly working diligently on the problem. In fact, AIDS funding skyrocketed in the 1980s, almost doubling each year from 1983 – when the media started blaring headlines – from $44 million to $103 million, $205 million, $508 million, $922 million, and then $1.6 billion in 1988 – all through bills Reagan signed.
5) Fifthy, Canada was likewise experiencing an AIDS epidemic around the same time (there were an estimated 30,000 infections by 1987, primarily arising from men having sex with men – see http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/06vol32/dr3215a-eng.php). But as far as I know, no one has villified or demonized the former Canadian Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau or Brian Mulroney for their percieved lack of activity. Rather, agencies like the Red Cross were blamed for their mistakes with the blood supply.
6) Sixthly, Reagan did not hate homosexuals. He had worked with many of them throughout his Hollywood career and was a good friend of Rock Hudson. In 1978, he opposed a ballot measure that would have barred homosexual teachers from public schools, saying: “Whatever it is, homosexuality was not a contagious disease, like the measles,” and that “Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.” He apparently did imagine that AIDS might possibly be a plague from God (as have many people who believe in the Bible, just as they have imagined earthquakes are judgements from God – but compare that notion to what Jesus says in Luke 13:1-5), but that didn’t mean he thought gays should just suffer and die (despite CBS’s miniseries putting the words “those who live in sin shall die in sin” into his mouth). People forget that Reagan, with some reservations, signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act of California in 1967.
In view of all of this, then, I would argue that there is little reason for the gay community to hate and demonize Reagan for the many deaths that resulted from AIDS in the 80s. Fault I suppose may be assigned to him (if he, rather than the men he freely delegated things to, was indeed responsibile) for holding back Koop (though if that was his doing, I don’t know why Heckler was allowed to speak about the virus) and not himself speaking out about it before 1985. But I don’t see how those “faults”, if averted, would have done much to change the course of things. Medical professionals were not going to recommend the use of condoms and abstinence until they were certain how the virus was transmitted. And studies since then have shown that proper condom use is often disregarded as a means of preventing AIDS or pregnancy. The earliest their use might have been recommended was maybe 1984 (my guess). But even if all of these things had been done, it would not have saved that many lives since there was at that time no medical treatment for the disease and having it was basically a death sentence. Gays have admitted suspecting at this time that the virus was somehow connected to their sexual activity and that it was prudent to use condoms, but many persisted in unprotected sexual activity nonetheless (instead of waiting things out about to see what the medical community could discover).
Gays demonize Reagan because they think that had he given the same amount of attention to AIDS and expended the same amount of energy as he did to dismantling the Berlin Wall, thousands of lives would have been saved. From the above cited evidence, I simply don’t know how one can make that argument – as if he could have greatly expedited the work the medical community was doing. More than money, research like that requires considerable and specific knowledge and skills, which were not all that extensive at the time (and not acquired overnight). I mean, look how much money has been given for cancer research and STILL they do not have a cure after all of these years. I therefore suppose it is a desire to blame others for the misfortune that has befallen you because of your actions (which we all do or have done, by the way) that explains the animus towards Reagan. And I would challenge those who hate Reagan for his perceived monstrosity in this matter to prove me wrong (I don’t HAVE to cling to the idea that Reagan was a decent man – the truth is the truth).
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
12:07 pm
“you libs are celebrating defeat of all attempts to curb illegal immigration”
How can we celebrate something that hasn’t happened?
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 25th, 2012
12:07 pm
Ben Shockley
June 25th, 2012
12:04 pm
Spoken like a true parrot. How do you suggest we do that?
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:07 pm
Ben Shockley
“Paul, so you libs are opposed to illegal immigration, but you are also opposed to making any attempt to limit it?
LMAO!!!”
Your first sentence indicated you were seeking for information.
Your second, that you assumed the answer.
For the record, the answer to your first question is “No.” Or, if you can’t analyze the truth content of a statement, the answers are “Yes, no.”
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
12:07 pm
Anyone else here smile whenever our Paul is lumped in with “you libs”?
Smile hell… I downright burst into sheer laughter.
josef
June 25th, 2012
12:07 pm
HIRAM
Question. Do you live in Dalton?
Towncrier
June 25th, 2012
12:07 pm
“When did that court packing happen?”
The practice started with FDR, I think.
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:08 pm
Pea,
For Atlanta not Ga.
Joseph
June 25th, 2012
12:08 pm
I’ve yet to hear of a Republican that won’t endorse Romney….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qwsx0VrQ5jc
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:09 pm
Paul is a rare breed.
A republican with a brain.
He is not a lib cons.
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:10 pm
Brosephus
“Vortex alert!!! Vortex alert!!! Vortex alert!!! Vortex alert!!!”
Thanks for the warning, friend, but I was under the impression Ben Shockley is unable to carry on a real discussion exploring different points of view and all he wants to do is that which he is capable of doing, namely, trade quips, so I was in an obliging mood.
Peadawg
June 25th, 2012
12:10 pm
“When 25 illegal aliens with 8 automobiles move into 3 bedroom house next door to Jay, he may view this issue from a different perspective. ”
No he won’t. He’ll welcome them and even bake them a cake and personally walk it over. Or atleast he should….
“Mrs. sfd and I (both devoutly pro-reproductive freedom our entire adult lives) have done.”
Good for you. Next you’ll welcome an illegal immigrant to your home, I’m sure.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 25th, 2012
12:10 pm
WHAT!!?? PAUL ISN”T A LIBERAL COMMIE PINKO???
josef
June 25th, 2012
12:11 pm
BROSEPHUS
I don’t know…Paul may be a lib. What day is it?
Joseph
June 25th, 2012
12:11 pm
getalife:
And liberals are a disgrace to Americans…
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
12:11 pm
Paul
Gotcha…
Carry on.
2nd Amendment Supporter
June 25th, 2012
12:12 pm
I ♣ bears for their arms.
Rickster
June 25th, 2012
12:12 pm
It will be interesting if Kagan recuses herself from the ACA decision as well.
She should.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 25th, 2012
12:13 pm
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:09 pm
Hmmmm…maybe there IS a third kind of Republican…but I bet it’s just Paul and one or two others…
Joseph
June 25th, 2012
12:13 pm
hiram:
In that scenario all you have to do is call the police and say they are disturbing the piece. They must check their legal status now thanks to the Supreme’s for upholding that provision of SB1070..
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
12:13 pm
josef
It’s the last Monday of an even numbered month in an even numbered year. Since it isn’t a full moon tonight, I’m not quite sure whether Paul is a Plantation Liberal today or not.
JamVet
June 25th, 2012
12:14 pm
Joseph, just as soon as you write the RNC to get rid of that disgraced and disgraceful POS Alan West…
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 25th, 2012
12:14 pm
Joseph
June 25th, 2012
12:11 pm
And there’s your sign…
stands for decibels
June 25th, 2012
12:14 pm
Next you’ll welcome an illegal immigrant to your home, I’m sure.
like josef said, I don’t check papers.
GT
June 25th, 2012
12:15 pm
Damage was done to many lives on this witch hunt. Alabama which decides to lead the nation in such things as this ,as opposed to quality of life, like a sick perverted mind searching out misery and not resting till all is in the mud with them, this intervention by the neighbor while they bully the weak must be torture.
I really don’t see how any Latino can vote for a Republican. Any family member of any American family, which some day may have a member in harms way, can vote for a party so cruel and set to destroy and bully anyone it decides is weak and helpless. There is such a clear choice and the court just backed that choice by saying this is not an American way of conduct.
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:15 pm
joey,
How are “libs a disgrace to Americans”?
Lord Help Us
June 25th, 2012
12:15 pm
‘In that scenario all you have to do is call the police and say they are disturbing the piece. ‘
Now that’s good for a chuckle on many levels…
Dirty Dawg
June 25th, 2012
12:15 pm
Listening to cable news reports on this ruling, I was looking for the ‘moderator’ to respond to the Repug commenters with, ‘Tell you what, in the future why don’t you folks just text us a copy of your talking points…we’ll just read em ourselves and save you the trouble of having to put on a tie or makeup.’
Fact is, they keep saying that this was the ‘papers please’ portion…it wasn’t…that was the part that said the police could stop them ‘on suspicion’, which was struck down. And for those that are saying they can simply stop people in a routine traffic ‘road block’ and require they prove legal status on the spot, that was struck down as well. And if they try it they’ll be back in court quicker than you can say ‘Jan Brewer’s been out in the sun too much.’
Brosephus™
June 25th, 2012
12:16 pm
In that scenario all you have to do is call the police and say they are disturbing the piece(sic). They must check their legal status now thanks to the Supreme’s for upholding that provision of SB1070..
You also face the potential of being charged with filing a false police report if they are NOT actually disturbing the peace. Filing a false report carries far more punishment in the court system than being in this country without documentation. You’re talking criminal charges vs civil charges there.
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:16 pm
Normal.
It is a very small group
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
12:16 pm
“I’ve yet to hear of a Republican that won’t endorse Romney….”
Ron Paul left the Republican Party? When?
209 more days
June 25th, 2012
12:16 pm
So now that Arizona can’t do their job of protecting their citizens from illegals, maybe the Federal Government can do their job and protect all citizens from illegals coming into our country without gaining proper citizenship.
But then again, we have O’Bama doing his best to gain more votes, to hell with what is best for the country………….
Doggone/GA
June 25th, 2012
12:17 pm
“The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is”
And that is what I said. The Court has affirmed what the Consitution says.
josef
June 25th, 2012
12:17 pm
BROSEPHUS
***********
Twenty five Messicans with EIGHT cars? Now anybody with an ounce of sense knows that there’d only be two cars for twenty-five…Jeeze…
Paul
June 25th, 2012
12:17 pm
josef
Ever since Bosch left and took the calendar with him, I get so confused.
But we still have the EOIs, don’t we?
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 25th, 2012
12:17 pm
Rickster
She has already said she won’t
She’s just another liberal hypocrite make it up as you go person
They BOTH suck
June 25th, 2012
12:19 pm
Jm @ 12:17
As opposed to those conservative hypocrites, right?
getalife
June 25th, 2012
12:19 pm
joey should read the WaPo on his speaker’s insider trading today.
The speaker should resign.