In Arizona case, court doesn’t betray its alleged ideological gap
Oh, that zany, right-wing Supreme Court.
Liberals have been working themselves into a frenzy about the possibility that the court’s four conservative justices and the less-predictable Anthony Kennedy will overturn the 2010 federal health-care reform, a.k.a. Obamacare. Such a ruling figures into two of the “5 Signs of a Radical Change in U.S. Politics,” according to The Atlantic’s James Fallows. “Court packing,” the idea of adding justices to the court which was last threatened by Franklin Roosevelt when the court wouldn’t accept as constitutional some of his New Deal programs, is already being suggested on the opinion pages of the Washington Post.
Other commentators have warned — presumably for the benefit of any justices who might peruse their columns or blogs — that the court risks discrediting itself if it rules in a way that just happens to go against President Barack Obama. Unexplained is exactly how and why this discrediting will occur, given that majorities of the public across partisan lines deem the law’s individual mandate unconstitutional.
So it must have been bewildering for some of these hand-wringers to find Kennedy and the court’s conservative chief justice, John Roberts, joining three of the liberals Monday to overturn much of Arizona’s controversial immigration law. (The fourth liberal, Elena Kagan, had argued the case as U.S. solicitor general and recused herself from it.)
For political junkies, there’s no buzz-kill like a busted narrative.
Oh, some people’s favorable reactions to Monday’s judgment were more muted than they might have been, were there not a potentially disagreeable (to them) ruling waiting to be released Thursday. For both the left and the right, the bigger prize is the Obamacare ruling, with its conceivably far-reaching implications for the federal government’s power over the individual. But the Roberts-Kennedy alliance with the court’s left wing on the Arizona ruling means we’ll see even more partisan contortions of logic than usual should the court strike down all or part of Obamacare.
Not that the Arizona case doesn’t carry its own import, both in practical terms and for the everlasting tug-of-war between federal and state powers and responsibilities.
In Arizona, the court recognized an extremely limited role for states when it comes to immigration policy. The court’s majority deemed even states’ enforcement of federal immigration law to be out of bounds if it could lead to state prosecutions the feds might have forgone. This, the court reasoned, could infringe on the federal government’s “control over enforcement” and the “integrated scheme of regulation” Congress had created. Never mind that Arizona created the law because the feds’ “control over enforcement” has been poor and Congress’ “integrated scheme of regulation” ineffective.
The only contested section of the law not overturned concerns the requirement for police who have arrested someone to check that person’s immigration status if there is reason to believe he might be in the country illegally. The court essentially said state courts must interpret that part of the law — does it apply equally to jaywalkers, who might be detained longer than usual for an immigration-status check, and drunk drivers, who probably wouldn’t? — before it could consider challenges. Which means that part of the law stands to be curtailed, at least, as well.
In one particularly head-scratching element of the ruling, the majority found that states could not impose criminal penalties on illegal immigrants seeking employment because federal law named only civil penalties. “There is no more reason to believe that this rejection was expressive of a desire that there be no [criminal] sanctions on employees,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissent, “than expressive of a desire that such sanctions be left to the States.”
Or as Justice Samuel Alito put it: “With any statutory scheme, Congress chooses to do some things and not others. If that alone were enough to demonstrate preemptive intent, there would be little left over for the States to regulate, especially now that federal authority reaches so far and wide. States would occupy tiny islands in a sea of federal power.”
As it happens, I have my own misgivings about parts of the Arizona law. Having lived and traveled in “show me your papers” countries, I see no place in a free society for police to stop anyone on the street just to ask if he’s legally present. (This differs from a status check of someone arrested for another reason.) And state solutions to illegal immigration are almost always going to be inferior to federal ones.
That said, states bear the brunt of working under ineffective federal immigration policies. It is understandable why Arizona — and Georgia, among others — felt compelled to try something new when Congress will not. And I find it hard to justify barring states from being more diligent enforcers of federal law than the feds have been.
So there are many things to say about the Arizona ruling. That it reflects an immutably ideologically divided group of judges, well, that is not one of them.
– By Kyle Wingfield
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
154 comments Add your comment
TGT
June 25th, 2012
1:56 pm
Missing a word at the end of the third paragraph?
Kyle Wingfield
June 25th, 2012
2:02 pm
TGT: Yes, thanks. I’ve fixed it, along with adding the links I meant to include.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 25th, 2012
2:10 pm
Another strike against obozo.
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
2:13 pm
Kyle,
In other words, you hate to say so but states have little rights left in the field of law. The Supreme Court gave them nothing but a “pacifier”. We will get another pacificer when we hear about ObamaCare.i.e. a little bit of something but not much of anything.
Scalia was right to be outraged at decisions made by his S C law partners. He likes “law” you can recognize as such.
TGT
June 25th, 2012
2:14 pm
Minus 5 points, but you still get an “A” (as usual).
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
2:25 pm
IR/YW, I fail to see where Obama got a strike against him today. At best, it was a push.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 25th, 2012
2:25 pm
Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/mendacious-mitt-romney-bid-liar-in-chief
Road Scholar
June 25th, 2012
2:28 pm
Sorry but no response here because I’m watching the liberals work themselves into a frenzy!!!! What a croc!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
2:30 pm
Finn, do you EVER stay on topic?
Why do you waste your time here?
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
2:30 pm
I report 2:10
I don’t think this was a “strike against Obozo”. This was a dusting with a feather against the administration. I doubt that any “new” regulations will even be posted to immigration authorities.
This sounds like the same ol’ mumbling about “law enforcement” that has allowed our country to overlook millions of people who have no allegiance to our country in any way.
Our forefathers knew better and put “allegiance” in our Constitution. Now we get the mangled version.
td
June 25th, 2012
2:30 pm
Kyle,
Why has not a state sued the Federal Government for not enforcing laws already on the books? Could they not sue them for the added cost to the state for healthcare, education, ect…?
yuzeyurbrane
June 25th, 2012
2:32 pm
I hope you are correct and it signals a return to the rule of law by the Supreme Court.
@@
June 25th, 2012
2:32 pm
The thing about liberals is they approve when the ruling is in their favor and disapprove when not. Would their cherished abortion rights exist without the court’s ruling on Roe v Wade? No.
For me Roe v. Wade is about privacy. Regardless of your personal opinions about whether or not you would have an abortion, each person deserves to have made their decision and act on that decision within the privacy of their own space.
A PRIVACY issue which the dems have made VERY public. Just can’t leave well enough alone.
With the exception of Ginsberg, I have no problem with ANY of the justices. I was pleased to see Kagan recuse herself. She’s the newest appointment, therefore I watch her with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
2:37 pm
Kyle, the libs are praising the court today, when Roberts crossed over and voted with the libs, but wait til Thursday, if the court strikes Oblamercare, they will be howling.
I am sometimes afraid of Roberts, I think generally he will do the right thing, but he is on record as saying he doesn’t want his court to be perceived as ideologically driven. I think he will at times cross over, just to prove the court stays away from being considered dominated by the right. Would a liberal do that, I don’t think so.
The MSM portrays the libs on the court as pious for their liberal rigidity, the conservatives are considered to be charlatan ideological hacks for voting as they believe.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
2:40 pm
Hey, @@. How’s this for a potential scenario?
November 2012 Obama loses his re-election bid. Seeing the ability to replace aging Supreme Court justices slipping away, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg retires, effective immediately.
Obama then tries to make a recess appointment for her open position, once again skirting the law and requiring either the Senate to stay in session through the middle of January, or having to try to overturn the appointment when they come back, which would be impossible even if the Republicans took control of the Senate.
I believe he is fully capable of such shenanigans.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 25th, 2012
2:40 pm
IR/YW, I fail to see where Obama got a strike against him today. At best, it was a push.
obozo made the immigration law in Arizona a personal vendetta, mainly because of the “checking your papers” provision, and he got beat on it. It’s practically the basis for the whole law and what all the dummycrats were blubbering about.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 25th, 2012
2:42 pm
if the court strikes Oblamercare, they will be howling.
Well, actually, many of us want the public option. Bringing down the mandate would move the Public Option front and center. Insurance companies are rightfully affeared of the Public Option.
Now, if they pull the whole law down – including the parts most Americans like (insurance can’t drop you, children on parents plan till 26, etc) then we will be howling.
DawgDad
June 25th, 2012
2:43 pm
I’m not a legal or Constitutional law expert, but the immigration issue is more Federalist vs. States Right than it is liberal vs. conservative.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 25th, 2012
2:44 pm
See what I mean?
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Filling their federal diapers.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
2:45 pm
Youze
I hope you are correct and it signals a return to the rule of law by the Supreme Court.
Is that your rule of law or mine. You like the ruling, it is the rule of law, right? If you don’t like it, it is just political ideology, right?
I can’t believe that the founding fathers ever envisioned a time when the President would pick and chose which laws he would enforce. I agree with Scalia, if the States knew how they were going to be treated by the Federal Gov, there would have been an exodus of state representatives from the Constitutional Congress. If they had known that the Tenth Amendment was not going to be worth the paper it was written on, they may have also not been quick to sign on.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 25th, 2012
2:45 pm
personal vendetta
huh? What are you smokin’?
Ray
June 25th, 2012
2:48 pm
The frustration you speak of, works both ways. Many a time it has been that the federal government felt it necessary to step in when a state failed to protect its residents, or offer equal protections. Health care being one of them. Georgia has refused to provide protections for those deemed uninsurable. An unnecessary death sentence for too many.
I personally would elect to take my life, before I would allow my family to be bankrupted over a health condition. But, before I would do that, I would seriously think of moving to one of the other 40 states that has seen fit to protect its residents (Georgia’s doctors often make this recommendation, my doctor recently told me). I would not want to, as all my love ones, and my precious grandchild live here. But what choice would I really have?
AmVet
June 25th, 2012
2:49 pm
Finn, fantastic article!
Mendacious Mitt has a rather nice ring to it, huh? How about this for a campaign slogan?
The Wacky World of Willard – where truth takes a permanent vacation.
And if he gets even 25% of the Latino vote, I’ll be shocked.
Gawd knows that the Lily White Party doesn’t deserve that much…
A new survey found that an overwhelming majority of Latino voters believe the Republican Party is “hostile” toward them and is alienating them.
The impreMedia/Latino Decisions survey also found that not even a potential nomination of Latino Sen. Marco Rubio as vice president could do much to change their sentiments.
Another key finding of the survey is that Latinos are turned off by Republican’s support for tougher immigration enforcement over the creation of a path to citizenship.
“Over the last five years, a lot of Latinos have been upset and moving away from the [Republican] party because of the hard stance on immigration,” said Matt Barreto, Principal Pollster for Latino Decisions. “So the Republican Party has a lot of work to do.”
A total of 500 registered Latino voters were included in the poll. It found that Latinos persistently lean toward President Obama and Democratic candidates, with 46% of them saying that Republicans “don’t care too much” about Latinos. Almost a third, 27%, said Republicans “are being hostile.”
The survey is also the first to examine Sen. Rubio’s favorability with Latino voters from across the nation. If Rubio were to be nominated by Republicans as vice president only 13% of respondents said they would be “much more likely” to vote for the GOP. Almost half of the respondents, 46 %, said it would “have no effect” on their decision.
As a voting bloc, up to 22 million Latinos are expected to be eligible to vote in 2012, Latinos will play no small role in the outcome of next year’s elections. The winner in swing states with large Latino populations like Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and even Virginia could very well be determined by the Latino vote. These are all states won by President Obama in 2008.
http://www.newstaco.com/2011/12/15/poll-shows-the-gop-seen-as-hostile-by-latino-voters/
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
2:50 pm
“Bringing down the mandate would move the Public Option front and center.”
Actually, no, it wouldn’t. You lefties no longer have the Hollow-Eyed Hippie from Haight-Asbury running the show, and won’t for a very long time.
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
2:54 pm
DawgDad, 2:43
You are correct. This administration has just about told states to “drop dead” as far as law is concerned. In other words, “they” will tell states what is lawful.
I hope our Supreme Court meant well. But they seem to have forgotten a whole lot about the balance of power.between states and the “national”. The ship of state is tilting badly.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
2:58 pm
Gee, a Latino poll shows Latinos going for the Democrat.
Color me shocked.
What’s next? A union poll showing how Romney is doomed?
You gotta love the nonsense being spouted by Obama’s sycophants on the Sunday talk shows. On Meet the Press, Bill Richardson claimed that 2 million Latinos have gotten jobs since Obama took office. Considering that the number even this administration claims for producing jobs is between 3 and 4.2 million “created or saved” jobs, Richardson is now making the case that 1/2 to 2/3rds of all jobs allegedly created by this administration went to Latinos.
Seriously?
I’d say you can’t make this stuff up, but it is clear that you lefties can.
Make a run for the border
June 25th, 2012
3:00 pm
Tiberius
Did Kyle make you the rule master?
Kyle?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
3:01 pm
No. Did God make you a jerk?
Make a run for the border
June 25th, 2012
3:03 pm
Tiberius
Based on how you reply to others on this board, you need to ask yourself that question?
Maybe you need a mirror
GT
June 25th, 2012
3:15 pm
I am overwhelmed at the energy shown by Georgia on matters of bigotry yet the shear lack of movement on matters of education, transportation, or legal justice. How they can filter through the health of its citizens, standard of living and a thousand other pertinent subjects to isolate on this matter is beyond comprehension. To call out the federal government for doing a sorry job from a world of stopped up sewers, and the worlds most crooked politicians is comedy, yet you couldn’t write it no one would ever believe the subject matter.
Truth Squad
June 25th, 2012
3:23 pm
The truth is that the court put a hutin’ on the law. When you lose 95% of what you enacted, it is not good news.
I hope the Democrats can be as gleeful should Obamacare suffer such a “victory”.
DawgDad
June 25th, 2012
3:26 pm
“I am overwhelmed at the energy shown by Georgia on matters of bigotry”
Suffice it to say a very large segment of our population understands this has NOTHING to do with bigotry. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it is “bigotry”.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
3:30 pm
“Maybe you need a mirror”
Maybe you need to focus on Kyle’s subject matter, Border.
If you’re capable of doing so.
the red herring
June 25th, 2012
3:34 pm
I for one am extremely disappointed in this ruling. I feel states should be allowed to enforce their own laws so long as they aren’t in direct conflict with federal law and in this case Arizona law was exactly like federal law. Bad decision by the supremes. I hope they strike down the entire health care law as that is the best way it can be fixed—start from scratch. Health care isn’t a “right” it is something that you earn by working for it. I guess steak and lobster will be a “right” soon. We are a nation of freebies and gifts in return for votes. If things don’t change and soon we will be another greece/spain/etc —sad but true. I feel for the residents of Arizona that live close to the border. Imagine the fear they live in at an unusual sound in the night… Our federal government and now our supreme court have let them down.
GT
June 25th, 2012
3:35 pm
“Obamacare” is a lot like this one. The problem is not going to go away. We will be “gleeful” because it is out in the open, no matter the decision. Oh later on the Republican will react and do about what this law says right now or the country will start dying in the streets. It will cost us about three times as much and will line money into the pockets of the right but they can claim they save us from the other one. A little like they saved us from Iraq. The education of the American public has taken a steep learning curve on this one. Most thought it was about the other guy. This dog is coming home to all of us and the guy who had the guts to bring it was Obama. Show me one time your boy showed that kind of guts, the flip flopping is for a reason.
@@
June 25th, 2012
3:36 pm
Tiberius:
I believe he is fully capable of such shenanigans.
I don’t just BELIEVE him to be, I KNOW him to be. He’s proven as much.
@@
June 25th, 2012
3:38 pm
For the record. I’m in favor of immigration reform. I was when GWB promoted it, and I still am today. I do, however, understand the border states’ dilemma. They carry a greater burden than do the rest of us.
Kyle Wingfield
June 25th, 2012
3:55 pm
Make a run: This is how I put it in my rules for the blog:
“My preference would be for these standards to be self-enforcing, for readers to call out any violators. I do not, however, want this to become a tactic for discouraging particular people — the equivalent of nuisance lawsuits.”
So I don’t have a problem with a poster suggesting people stay on topic, as long as those suggestions don’t themselves become distractions.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 25th, 2012
4:00 pm
A little like they saved us from Iraq.
LOL. A country that barely had running water and full time electricity and all the Republicans are freakin’ out and crawling to hide under their beds.
I believe they came out from under their beds in, oh, maybe 2008?
OMG, raiese the alert level to orange! OMG!
What leadership!
Hillbilly D
June 25th, 2012
4:00 pm
The Supreme Court has been at 9, since 1869. That number works just fine. What’s needed is diversity on the Court. There are basically 4 1/2 from the left and 4 1/2 from the right, that’s about where the diversity ends.
There are 3 women on the Court, all from New York City. There are no Protestants on the Court. Every current Justice has an Ivy League background. Seven of the nine are from east of the Appalachian Mountains. We need to look at making future appointees a better reflection of the country. Let’s get people from different parts of the country, different backgrounds and different schools.
carlosgvv
June 25th, 2012
4:07 pm
Kyle, did Scalia say anything in his dissent that you find unconstitutional?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
4:20 pm
Unconstitutional is how they rule, carlos, not what they say.
What they say is covered under the 1st Amendment.
Thomas Heyward Jr.
June 25th, 2012
4:26 pm
“And state solutions to illegal immigration are almost always going to be inferior to federal ones.”
Kyle Wingfield
Spoken like a true metro-type vichey American.(all hail the feds).
.
The federal
government did not create the states; the states created the federal
government.”
― Ronald Reagan
Spoken like a Free American.
Plexed
June 25th, 2012
4:28 pm
Hey y’all, ain’t it a bit hypocritical to blame Obama for everything from the economy to China holding Tibet and then label him “Oblama or Oblamer”. I mean, I don’t much like the guy and think we could do better but looking at the GOP “Big Tent” I don’t see much room in there for anyone but folk that would label someone else for doing something they do EVERY DAY. That’s not me… guess I’ll vote for Ron Paul – he and his supporters look more and more sane every day compared to what used to be the Republican party and it’s “base”. Sad
@@
June 25th, 2012
4:43 pm
Off-topic but GEEZ!!!!!
Surprised local taxpayers from Stockton, Calif., to Scranton, Pa., are finding themselves obligated for parking garages, hockey arenas and other enterprises that can no longer pay their debts.
Officials have signed them up unknowingly to backstop the bonds of independent authorities, the special bodies of government that run projects like toll roads and power plants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/business/surprised-taxpayers-are-paying-for-bonds-they-did-not-vote-on.html?pagewanted=all
Make a run for the border
June 25th, 2012
4:56 pm
No problem, Kyle
You seem to tolerate bs more by some than others as well as name calling. Your blog.
Take care
@@
June 25th, 2012
4:56 pm
Andy was correct in his 2:40.
Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece
Liberals will “stand” (and cheer) for anything.
schnirt
carlosgvv
June 25th, 2012
4:56 pm
Tiberius – 4:20
Gosh, that’s really profound.
Aquagirl
June 25th, 2012
4:57 pm
local taxpayers from Stockton, Calif., to Scranton, Pa., are finding themselves obligated for parking garages, hockey arenas and other enterprises that can no longer pay their debts.
Something to keep in mind when you hear babbling about public-private partnerships.
jconservative
June 25th, 2012
5:02 pm
“Which means that part of the law stands to be curtailed, at least, as well.”
And it will. Some policeman is going to arrest someone for jaywalking and the person will be locked up for 3 days while they check on immigration status. Kennedy in his majority opinion said that, on its face, would be unconstitutional.
This ruling by the court effectively killed any state attempts to be a player in immigration.
The state governors need to get their muscle behind an attempt to force Congress to get off their rear-ends and pass a comprehensive, compromised, immigration bill.
But it is OK to wait until after the election. Correct? Correct!
Hillbilly D
June 25th, 2012
5:07 pm
Something to keep in mind when you hear babbling about public-private partnerships.
In my opinion, public/private partnerships are usually a way for somebody’s buddy to make a whole lot of money, while spreading the risks to the Great Unwashed. It goes well, somebody gets well; it goes bad, the taxpayers are on the hook.
Kyle Wingfield
June 25th, 2012
5:08 pm
Make a run: You’re right, I let Finn get away with murder on here. Oh well.
Kyle Wingfield
June 25th, 2012
5:10 pm
jconservative: Just curious … do you think Congress would be more likely to get off their rear-ends if state legislatures still picked the senators?
JDW
June 25th, 2012
5:11 pm
@Tiberius…”Finn, do you EVER stay on topic?”
At least somebody around here is telling the truth…it sure isn’t Mittens.
Make a run for the border
June 25th, 2012
5:15 pm
Kyle
And not the one I directed the post to earlier?
Really? You are a good writer, so I assume you are a good reader.
JDW
June 25th, 2012
5:22 pm
@Tiberius…relative to your earlier blathering regarding the inablity of local law enforcement to check status…
From the AJC relative to Jessica Colotl
“She was handed over to federal immigration officers as part of a local-federal partnership called 287(g), which allows Cobb County deputies to check the immigration status of inmates.”
I also noticed where the Feds have now told Homeland Security not to answer the phone when AZ calls to check status…
yuzeyurbrane
June 25th, 2012
5:29 pm
rafe, I, too, did not like everything in the Court’s decision and I am certain you and I probably disagree over what we like and don’t like about it. But it was a reasonable analysis based on how they interpreted the law by most of the Justices. That is the rule of law as I see and therefore I am comfortable with their decision although I am not ecstatic.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 25th, 2012
5:31 pm
Section 2(B) also provides that “any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” The high court’s unanimous approval of Section 2(B) is a strong rebuke to the administration’s theory of executive power. – Taranto, WSJ
And, as usual, obozo will just ignore the law.
md
June 25th, 2012
5:33 pm
“States would occupy tiny islands in a sea of federal power.”
Would?? More like already are……….as the quote on page one demonstrates, be wary of the monster one creates…..the States no longer have the say or the power they were given by the founding fathers….the freakinstein monster has taken the reins.
Want proof? On the very same day the SC delivers it’s ruling:
“The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.”
Careful, the monster is on the loose…………
md
June 25th, 2012
5:37 pm
If I’m the governor of AZ, as they are found to be there illegally, I’m putting them on the bus and dropping them off at the front gate of the White House and Congress………
Aquagirl
June 25th, 2012
5:41 pm
If I’m the governor of AZ, as they are found to be there illegally, I’m putting them on the bus
That would be awesome. Jan Brewer serving like 400 years for kidnapping and unlawful detention? PRICELESS.
Please e-mail your suggestion to Governor Finger-Wag immediately. God I hope she takes the bait.
Don't Tread
June 25th, 2012
5:42 pm
“I can’t believe that the founding fathers ever envisioned a time when the President would pick and choose which laws he would enforce.” Or break, for that matter.
So now AZ can’t enforce their law, and the feds have basically told them “screw you” as far as federal enforcement of immigration law.
Storm clouds on the horizon…
Ol' Timer
June 25th, 2012
5:55 pm
The Obama adminstration are novices when it comes to deviousness when compared to Cheney and the Bush administration and, I don’t believe any of the deviousness of the Obama adminstration has cost thousands of young lives lost and the tens of thousands of young lives maimed and tens of thousands of young lives wrecked by adventurous involvement in unwinnable conflicts in the middle east.
And, the unexplainable situation is that, if given the opportunity, this same party would double-down on our involvement in unwinnable conflicts in the same region. Un-freakin’-believeable!!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 25th, 2012
5:59 pm
Tiberius: November 2012 Obama loses his re-election bid. Seeing the ability to replace aging Supreme Court justices slipping away, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg retires, effective immediately.
——————
Under normal circumstances it seems like an opposition party would have a difficult time filibustering a Supreme Court nominee, but in your scenario Republicans would be more than willing and able to filibuster and would be supported by the American people (and a goodly number of Democrats too).
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 25th, 2012
6:02 pm
Ol’ Timer: I don’t believe any of the deviousness of the Obama adminstration has cost thousands of young lives lost and the tens of thousands of young lives maimed
———————-
Did we get out of Afghanistan sometime during the last three and a half years, and I just missed it?
Didn’t think so.
As for “deviousness” did you not see the clip of Obozo with his hot mike giving away our missile defenses to the Russians? That is, if Americans are foolish enough to give him the “flexibility” afforded by a second term?
md
June 25th, 2012
6:05 pm
I also find the link about Romney lying quite comical……to establish that Romney is lying, the author quotes other lies as his source……too funny.
And for those that don’t know how the game is played, the cbo scores using only data provided to it by it’s handlers…….and when the stimulus started counting jobs to include those that never were in jeopardy of losing their jobs in the first place, then the numbers are never going to be correct….
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-12-stimulus-counting_N.htm
md
June 25th, 2012
6:13 pm
“That would be awesome. Jan Brewer serving like 400 years for kidnapping and unlawful detention? PRICELESS.”
Wrong…..they have the right to hold them if stopped for other offenses……if found to be illegal, the feds will tell them to release them…….the feds didn’t say where they had to release them……
Aquagirl
June 25th, 2012
6:22 pm
if found to be illegal, the feds will tell them to release them…….the feds didn’t say where they had to release them……
One of the reasons I no longer vote Republican is because of creepy public fantasizing like this. So let me encourage you one more time to spread your ideas, I don’t think you realize how they look to folks outside your echo chamber.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 25th, 2012
6:25 pm
Good grief, another libtard claiming they used to vote Republican.
So played, and so obviously dishonest.
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
6:27 pm
I can’t help but wonder “Where did we go wrong?”
We have a president who cares more about illegal aliens than legal citizens.
We have a Supreme Court that almost makes a state null & void.
We have a constitution that is either ignored or twisted.
We have a debt so large that it makes Greece look like Bill Gates bank..
We have politicians telling doctors how to practice medicine.
We have sworn enemies of America locked in comfort on a tropical island and nobody knows what to do with them.
We have China making our goods, financing our debts and owning prize US real estate.
We are buying helicopters from Russia.
We have paid & unpaid Dem (Bush did it!) agitators posting insulting anti-Romney lies on a conservative blog about immigration.
So I can only ask again: Where did we go wrong?”
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
6:27 pm
I can’t help but wonder “Where did we go wrong?”
We have a president who cares more about illegal aliens than legal citizens.
We have a Supreme Court that almost makes a state null & void.
We have a constitution that is either ignored or twisted.
We have a debt so large that it makes Greece look like Bill Gates bank..
We have politicians telling doctors how to practice medicine.
We have sworn enemies of America locked in comfort on a tropical island and nobody knows what to do with them.
We have China making our goods, financing our debts and owning prize US real estate.
We are buying helicopters from Russia.
We have paid & unpaid Dem (Bush did it!) agitators posting insulting anti-Romney lies on a conservative blog about immigration.
So I can only ask again: Where did we go wrong?”
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
6:29 pm
md
With the Oblamer regime refusing to enforce the Immigration laws and the court saying the states are not allowed to enforce the law, it is time for the border States to try something new. Playing off your “road trip idea”, how about this. Using money previously expended for immigration enforcement, buy some state buses and hire some drivers. When illegals are apprehended offer them a free ride to any blue state they choose. Bus loads of illegals unloading in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Baltimore and Washington, DC would do a lot toward motivating the Dems to help close the borders.
Or, we could elect a strong majority of Republicans to the House and Senate and elect Romney.
Aquagirl
June 25th, 2012
6:31 pm
So I can only ask again: Where did we go wrong?”
Hitting the “submit” button twice?
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
6:34 pm
Uhoh…I did not post it twice! Just read it once. Thank you.. OK…so don’t read it at all!!
md
June 25th, 2012
6:35 pm
“So let me encourage you one more time to spread your ideas, I don’t think you realize how they look to folks outside your echo chamber.”
Echo chambers are relative aquagirl…….based on perception.
I’d say my chamber may be a bit bigger than your chamber based on these numbers:
Rasmussen poll “finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters think the federal government is not making enough effort to identify and deport illegal immigrants. Only 16% feel the government is doing too much to deport illegals, while 25% say the current amount of effort is about right.”
A lot depends on which poll one looks at on any given day, but the majority of what I’ve read show folks don’t much care for “illegal” immigrants………
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
6:37 pm
Submit button twice? But the automatic moderator knows better. Ha! Asleep on the job!
md
June 25th, 2012
6:39 pm
AG….we need to get you a “Hug a Line Jumper” bumper sticker so the legal immigrants know how you feel.
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
6:41 pm
Yes, md, you said….
(Some) folks don’t care for Illegal immigrants. Not Aquagirl. She doesn’t care for legal conservatives.
md
June 25th, 2012
6:42 pm
Rafe…..works for me…..those States that prefer not to accept the extra burden/cost would save a lot of time and aggravation by letting illegals know they are not welcome but would gladly fund the trip to a State that would take them with open arms…….States such as CA, that are 25 billion in the red but not too sure why………..
iggy
June 25th, 2012
6:44 pm
Oh Goody…the Actor n Chief will be in Atlanta tomorrow and as a bonus he will be on a movie set. WOW!! Its a 2 for 1. A President and Actor all rolled into one. I better get the smelling salts.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
6:45 pm
Ronald Reagan once said something to the effect of … The Federal government did not create the States, the States created the Federal Government. Can we get a mulligan?
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
6:48 pm
md
The big thing is no one can say it is illegal. The blue states have used this strategy to move the homeless to Florida, when they want to get them out of town for a Super Bowl or political convention. Just post signs, IF YOU ARE HERE ILLEGALLY WE OFFER FREE TRANSPORTATION ELSEWHERE.
iggy
June 25th, 2012
6:50 pm
“So I can only ask again: Where did we go wrong?”
Correct me if Im wrong but I beleive it all began with the group of drunken, morally bankrupt, spoiled little rich kids, the kennedys.
Bobbys attitude was “we can get away with anything because guess what…we have!!” Seems the lib-tards love behaving like their heros, the…*vomit*… kennedys.
md
June 25th, 2012
7:10 pm
I guess it is after 5 so Finn is gone for the day, but he (and others) might find the info in this book informative in relation to his oft erroneously posted info about red states and blue sates and tax dollars……glance through the chapter titled “Who pays more taxes”……and hint, it isn’t the dems.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Democrats_and_Republicans_Rhetoric_and_R.html?id=96bItJAoRysC
md
June 25th, 2012
7:14 pm
“The taxpayer – that’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”
Ronald Reagan
Tiberius - Banned by Bookman and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
7:22 pm
JDW,,that program you cite requires the police force in question to undergo ICE specific training and to be certified before they can perform those checks.
It is NOT SOP for everybody.
Once again, epic failure on your part to understand laws.
tiredofIT
June 25th, 2012
7:36 pm
“Ronald Reagan spoken like a Free American.” The astrology president.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 25th, 2012
7:52 pm
Obozo would kill for that astrology president’s job creation record.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
7:54 pm
The astrology president.
Yeah, astrology is out of style now, it requires a birth certificate to participate.
jconservative
June 25th, 2012
8:07 pm
Kyle Wingfield June 25th, 2012 5:10 pm
jconservative: Just curious … do you think Congress would be more likely to get off their rear-ends if state legislatures still picked the senators?
YES!
jconservative
June 25th, 2012
8:13 pm
“We have a Supreme Court that almost makes a state null & void.
We have a constitution that is either ignored or twisted.”
Scalia is wrong in his dissenting opinion. The states do not have sovereignty. They surrendered it when they approved the Constitution. But then, dissenting opinions are not law, they are an opportunity to make a statement from the soapbox. See Justive Stevens dissenting opinions as the classic example.
Since 1803 the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
8:27 pm
From ABC News
Jimmy Carter, America’s 39 th president, denounced the Obama administration for “clearly violating” 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, writing in a New York Times op-ed on Monday that the “United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.”
So where is the outrage on the left about our “war criminal” in the WH? I guess Oblamer considered W to be a “War Criminal”, and he has imitated Bush on most everything else, so why not.
Karen
June 25th, 2012
8:29 pm
Scalia is one scary dude. But no frenzy here, just look how dumb Jan Brewer is and the Pubs think she is an older wiser Sarah Palin.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward - Again)
June 25th, 2012
8:31 pm
Rafe, by the time it’s all over Obozo will have two or three Nobel Peace prizes. That’s just how it is in the reality-free zone known as Libtardia.
Aquagirl
June 25th, 2012
8:44 pm
Yeah, astrology is out of style now, it requires a birth certificate to participate.
I shouldn’t laugh at birther jokes, but that was funny as hell.
Jm
June 25th, 2012
9:16 pm
Kyle i hope you’ve read this. And I hope jay contemplates it too
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/opinion/gergen-supreme-court/index.html
Media, politicians need to show maturity
When the decision comes down, it is equally important that the media and the nation’s political leaders show some maturity and balance in appraising the court’s action.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward - Again)
June 25th, 2012
9:18 pm
No, what’s important is that we dance merrily on the grave of Obozocare and thank the Supreme Court for restoring the natural order–people before politicians–especially where our health care is concerned.
Don Abernethy
June 25th, 2012
9:22 pm
With all the liberals in Washington, the media,and now the Supreme Court our county will continue our downward slide until finally we will be a third world nation. And the voters can not see it coming.
@@
June 25th, 2012
9:24 pm
Enter your comments here
@@
June 25th, 2012
9:25 pm
Oops! I have no comment.
Don Abernethy
June 25th, 2012
9:26 pm
Is the Supreme Court going liberal like all the rest of the idiots in Washington? What next Obama care??
Hillbilly D
June 25th, 2012
9:28 pm
I’ve never really done the research but I’ve always wondered how many of the decisions that we consider “landmark decisions” over the last century or two, have been decided by one vote.
JDW
June 25th, 2012
9:35 pm
Tiberius….”It is NOT SOP for everybody.”
O’Dear you mean we should let our police harass citizens with no training…sounds like anarchy to me.
I say again, the ruling allows the local police to do just what they could have done anyway.
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
10:07 pm
Hey comrade socialist libs… “Show me you pap’rs please?!”
Can you hurry up Thursday Kyle?
Yeah… just saying
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
10:19 pm
Hillbilly D, 9:28
I don’t think this present ruling is a “landmark” decision as far as immigration is concerned.
It is a “landmark” decision on the rights of states. It has done an inchworm move forward on immigration which will end up in court again. But it again raises the mighty question of the three divisions of our government as the executive branch tries to be the Imperial Emperor of the country and rule alone.
I hope Americans will realize what is happening before the presidential election comes up. Inspiration in the White House is dead and gone. Even Jimmy Carter knows it!!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
10:27 pm
JDW, you really need to pay attention. Police departments cannot access the Federal databases, nor apply Federal criteria to ascertain the immigration status of someone who is detained unless the y have receive specific ICE training and have been certified by ICE. In Georgia, for instance, there are less than a handful of police / sheriff’s departments that have received ICE certification, so to repeat, your contention that police could have done this is false.
More importantly, your childish and lawless President took the ridiculous step of shutting down Arizona’s access to the ICE databases following this ruling today, Yeah, JDW, the “man” who swore an oath to enforce the laws of this nation just completely and totally defied the Supreme Court’s UNANIMOUS ruling allowing Arizona to ascertain the immigration status of someone being detained for a crime.
But I’m sure, as always, that you’ll find a way to defend his ignorance of the law and disregard for it.
Hillbilly D
June 25th, 2012
10:28 pm
Dusty
I went back and did a little research (unscientific) and the only big decision I found that was 5-4 was Miranda v Arizona (better known as the Miranda Decision). I just checked a few and didn’t go in depth.
Brown v Board of Education was 9-0 and Dred Scott v Sandford was 7-2.
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
10:30 pm
I say again, the ruling allows the local police to do just what they could have done anyway.
Wrong brucie!.
Now they can do it without the same degree fear from a legal challenge for having done it and… AND, it is a hell of alot harder to PROVE a discrimination claim in a court of law than it is for people like you who simply make a public claim of it at every time one of your pet ethnic groupies face the same legal treatment as those you have nothing but disdain for receive anytime we are stopped by law enforcement.
The pendulum is swinging back to the right, Comrades. Your beloved Socialism of the past century is no longer in social vogue.
Oh and Kyle, about that packing of the court… The socialist pee-gressives actually did pack the court without implementing FDR’s grand scheme. When we win in November don’t think for one minute that we on the right will not seat another Roberts, Scalia, Thomas or Alito to have our time at the helm of legal power any differently these the liberal Marxist did for over 100 years.
Cram it down “THEIR” throats!
Karma is a Aqua-girl, brucie!
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
10:35 pm
Tiberious, 10:27
Who made that announcement about closing Arizona’a access to ICE database? The president? Holder? It is so clumsily obvious and politically inspired as being totally incredulous.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
10:40 pm
Not sure, Dusty, but I suspect it was someone at Homeland Security.
Gov. Jan Brewer was on Greta tonight and confirmed the shut down of the state’s access.
Greta also mentioned that Holder’s Justice Dept. also had a hotline set up this afternoon for people who are detained in Arizona to report any right’s violations.
This administration is filled with so many immature children from the top down, it is no longer funny.
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
10:41 pm
Hillbilly D
There are more recent one vote big decisions other than Miranda. One of them nearly “over turned” a landmark case, Roe -v- Wade, and that chill wind still blows to this day, as Scalia and Plurality remain just one vote away from a reversal of not so “SETTLED LAW”.
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
10:45 pm
Hillbilly,
I wonder what the standards are to identify a “landmark decision”? The ones you mentioned are certainly well known but what else?
I can’t see how today’s annoucement from the Supreme Court gave anything that made the earth shake or even a quiver. Oh well….next cometh ObamaCare. If not a landmark, most certainly a pain in the neck either way it goes. I don’t want the government serving as my doctor.
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
10:51 pm
Tiberius
obumer’s blatant violation of his oath of office to uphold the laws and Constitution of this country, as in this case, will prompt another suit from a State against the Federal government leading back to the Supreme Court, forcing obumer to enforce the laws on the books he doesn’t like.
Anyone who truly is loyal to this Republic has to be greatly troubled by obumer’s arbitrary refusal to enforce the laws, which makes him an arrogant tyrant.
Hillbilly D
June 25th, 2012
10:52 pm
I wonder what the standards are to identify a “landmark decision”?
I think like most things in life, it’s in the eye of the beholder.
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
10:55 pm
Tiberius,
We need a hot line to report Holder’s rejection of law and order as established in the USA. The country has about reached the 911 stage.with CPR needed in Washington.
Maybe tomorrow will be better. I hope!! G’nite…
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
10:56 pm
If the mandate alone is overturned the only significance of that will be the first time the Commerce Clause will have had limits applied to it. Important, yes. But not exactly landmark.
I’m not sure that even having the whole law thrown out would be considered landmark.
A big slap in the face to the administration and to all the lawmakers who alternately claimed that severability was “implied” without being specifically stated, and for people like Pelosi, et al, who claimed the mandate was easily Constitutional.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a provision Federal in law that required Congresspeople or Senators to resign their office immediately and be barred from re-election if they voted for a law that was ultimately considered un-Constitutional? Ah, I can only dream . . .
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
10:57 pm
Hillbilly D
Good answer! G’nite…
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
10:59 pm
In the obumercare case there is no doubt about being LANDMARK. It will settle for many years to come whether the Federal government power’s are limited or unlimited, whether we are a Representative Republic or a Fascist Socialist Totalitarian Oligarchy.
ld
June 25th, 2012
10:59 pm
It has long seemed that the GOP has wanted the best of both sides for their investor/employer and that “other” constituency. In eight Bush years with much of that with a Republican-controlled Congress, the GOP showed little actual interest in acting to stop illegal immigration much less deporting them — even after 9/11 — but haven’t want them “legalized” them either, lest they become able to vote for the Democrats. Legalizing illegals would serve to anger the parts of the base the Democrats lost in the south to the GOP after civil rights legislation — don’t even pretend it doesn’t still exist w/strong “feelings”. Legalizing illegals could also serve to enable them to join unions and otherwise widen their opportunities and compete for higher wages — contrary to the bu$ine$$ intere$t$ part of the GOP base.
Mitt Romeny has yet to indicate he will reverse the Obama policy w/regard to not deporting those brought here as minor children and he has yet to put any comprehensive plan on the table. He cannot be concerned about angering the Democrats so, he must be concerned about angering the Republicans.
The new Supreme Court ruling seems to indicate that federal courts want to protect federal power and keep immigration policy a federal decision — including by using broad interpretations to strike down state efforts to identify illegals so they can be turned over to the feds.
The ruling also seems to say that, while it is illegal to cross the border w/o authorization, it seems it is not illegal to BE here.
So, if any president — Obama or Romney — decided to grant a pardon to illegals for the crime of crossing the border to get here, and then if those thus pardoned STAY here and do not leave then again come back, they are pretty much home free as far as deportation is concerned.
Short of laws to encourge self-deportation that the fed courts do not strike down, the states are, as of now, impotent.
Romney’s near silence now on specifics of HIS comprehensive immigration policy/plan may well be a first step in a re-election plan that includes that pardon. If Obama does not beat him to it.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
10:59 pm
Michael H. Smith, I wish the Supreme Court would re-convene in emergency session and vote to order the Obama administration to reinstate Arizona’s access. After all, it was a unanimous decision upholding that provision.
This President is simply out of control.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
11:05 pm
“Mitt Romeny has yet to indicate he will reverse the Obama policy w/regard to not deporting those brought here as minor children and he has yet to put any comprehensive plan on the table.”
Sorry he doesn’t use words you can understand, but he said that his comprehensive policy would negate any reversal or continuation of Obama’s edict.
And Romney has announced support for Rubio’s plan in the works, so he has one being offered in the appropriate manner – through the legislative process.
Sorry if he doesn’t cross all your “T”s and dot all your “I”s for you.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
11:06 pm
And with that, I’m outta here!
md
June 25th, 2012
11:09 pm
I’d consider the aca case to be “landmark”, if for no other reason to finally decide if the commerce clause will be used for everything the feds care to do. As “commerce” is a basic tenant of our economy, the SC doesn’t stop it here, they will be forever establishing precedent that it won’t be stopped. That joke about broccoli may be just around the corner if hc costs continue to escalate and the feds have to find ways to constrain the costs. What better way to do that than to dictate what is and isn’t the proper foods to purchase and consume in the name of healthcare “for the good of all”
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
11:11 pm
Tiberius
There comes a point, as I said that loyalty if one has it, means defending the country and constitution supersedes precedents and even Presidents. Either Congress or the Court must act to preserve the Republic… Nixon wasn’t above the law and neither is this little want-to-be tyrant. If we allow a President to pick and chose which laws shall be enforce we cease to be a nation ruled by law, a Republic.
ld
June 25th, 2012
11:13 pm
All power tries to HOLD power.
This court decision has some of that–keep federal power federal and keep federal courts the venue for resolving those disputes.
ANY US administration wants to hold as much power as possible. The seeming petulance of the Obama administration in not helping the state “win” against it is another example. Obama is not “out of control” so much as he is using as much of the control he has as he can to make a partial win more of a win.
ld
June 25th, 2012
11:17 pm
Tiberius: What I hear him say was Romney say is that he would not “need” to because he would immediately have Congress pass a comprehensive plan — that does not say whether that plan will contain this element or not — nor does it “guarantee” anything will pass.
As I recall, Bush DID want comprehensive immigration reform and his own party blocked him more than any Democrat on the issue.
ld
June 25th, 2012
11:19 pm
Getting sleepy, clearly.
Meant to say that what I heard Romeny say was that he would not need to leave in place Obama’s directive because …..
He may find getting Congress to pass something more like herding cats.
ld
June 25th, 2012
11:20 pm
outta here; nite all
hryder
June 26th, 2012
1:30 am
The major problem with this and many of the “judical rulings”, is that the vast majority of the judges as well as most others in the country have not resided in or visited Arizona, New Mexico, or South Texas actually experiencing the problems created by the lack ot the federal enforcement of congressional created laws. The mentioned states areas are not the east or west coasts nor the midwest or south and have a uniquness apart from all other areas that are incomprehensible unless experienced as a full time resident for much more than a few months.
Just Curious
June 26th, 2012
4:53 am
Just what kind of “papers” will individuals have to show, and how many Dixiecrats already have them in their possession? Mark Rubio doesn’t look Latino, so be careful of what you wish.
seabeau
June 26th, 2012
6:08 am
Kyle: As I have said before,The States need to call for a Constitutional Convention, where States Rights could be returned to the status they were given by the Constitution.
@@
June 26th, 2012
6:57 am
As I recall, Bush DID want comprehensive immigration reform and his own party blocked him more than any Democrat on the issue.
John McCain was on Greta last night. Listening to him recall GWB’s efforts on comprehensive immigration reform, it was both parties who opposed it. It makes me wonder if Obama isn’t hurting hisself with this push on immigration. Why would dems oppose GWB’s efforts if not in support of their constituent’s views.
I know plenty of democrats who are opposed to immigration reform.
I was behind a black fella in the grocery store once…he was raising cain about the language selection in the self checkout line…very angry…very loud. Said something about going back to where they belong…that they were stealing what rightfully belonged to the American people.
tiredofIT
June 26th, 2012
7:41 am
” Inspiration in the White House is dead and gone” Romney can’t even inspire his own party.
Tommy Gunn
June 26th, 2012
7:50 am
I am amazed at many things in this column as well as how easy a fix would be to this ” power grab” by the federal government.
First, we ALREADY live in a check your papers state. If you doubt that, ask anyone who traveled south on I75 last weekend between the TN state line and Cartersville between11pm and 1am.
Second, the founding fathers DID envision such a scenario as we are presented with today, and a mechanism to address it. A Constitutionial Convention . We could with fix all that is wrong and re instate states rights. I just wonder would those in power “allow”it to take place!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 26th, 2012
8:01 am
“I was behind a black fella in the grocery store once”
Please, @@! That would be “a gentleman of African-American persuasion . . .”
carlosgvv
June 26th, 2012
8:24 am
Tiberius
Please, you MUST ask this individual how he wishes to be addressed before you dare refer to him in any ethnic or racial way.If not, he will have the civil rights police in action quicker than you can say Al Sharpton.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
8:28 am
The presumptive GOP nominee happened to be in Arizona when the Supreme Court struck down three key provisions of the state’s controversial “Papers, please” law and left a fourth hanging by a thread. But when the ruling was announced, Romney issued an intentionally vague statement, then spent the rest of the day ducking reporters, with his spokesman providing no further clarity. He did allow at a fund-raiser last night that “I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states, not less,” but the day ended without Romney addressing the specifics of Arizona’s law or the court’s decision.
Romney needs to grow a pair.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
9:05 am
another made it a crime for undocumented migrants to try to get a job in Arizona;
and AZ still has an unemployment rate of 8%. mwuahahahahahaha
td
June 26th, 2012
9:30 am
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
9:05 am
another made it a crime for undocumented migrants to try to get a job in Arizona;
and AZ still has an unemployment rate of 8%. mwuahahahahahaha
The law was never implemented due to the immediate court challenge and injunction placed on the state by a Federal judge.
But hey, do not let the facts get in your way of a dumb political point.
@@
June 26th, 2012
9:33 am
Tiberius:
White fella, Latino fella, Asian fella, an effiminate fella? All fellas to me.
With his “very angry/very loud” behavior, we could argue whether he was a “gentle manly” fella or not.
md
June 26th, 2012
9:55 am
I do wonder how Obama’s base feels about him issuing executive orders to allow up to roughly a million illegals into the work force at a time when jobs are already tough to come by…..especially in an area such as South LA, where the latino community is growing by the day and more than likely has a large percentage of illegals since LA is a sanctuary city:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/28/business/la-fi-black-unemployment-20120428
md
June 26th, 2012
9:57 am
Oh, and that is Maxines’ district……so it should get interesting……..
TRUTH
June 26th, 2012
10:25 am
The SCOTUS conservatives realized that the WORLD was watching them. Although the overtle con SCOTUS members probably wanted to uphold the AZ law, they realized that their opinions would have been fodder for the upcoming campaign that Mitt still hasn’t decided on how he will flip (or is that flop??!!) on that agenda point. Frankly, watching Jan Brewer come on and claim a shallow victory missed the writings of our dear Mr. Wingfield. Can we all agree that 25% of the original law was left standing while the other 75% was essentially gutted? In short, GOP FAIL. And by the con members of the SCOTUS no less!!
As for the Affordable Healthcare Act ruling that is due sometime this century…the SCOTUS is once again placed squarely under the light. Although the GOP is already running about trying to find a place to spike the ball, I would think after the AZ ruling they may be thinking that they could be left holding the ball. Contrary to many of these selfish idiots ideaology, the American public is FOR the Affordable Healthcare Act (known the the GOP faithful as “OBAMACARE”). It is not that the citizenry is for a hand-out, but for care, both responsive and preventative. Further, the absurdity of the GOP being once for a federal mandate and to suddenly switch course is NOT a result of any political shift within the party, but more a unified effort, much too the GOP’s detriment, to stonewall and attempt to defeat the President. I will not infuse racisim into the argument, because stupidity and outright horsepoo floats to the top whenever the GOP opens its mouth.
The SCOTUS decision regarding AZ may be a telling sign of the GOP’s ultimate plan to grab power, but and even better the will of the American Citizen to see this attempt by the GOP as they have across the country and finally end the charade put on by the GOP as trying to be citizen friendly. (My bad, they are citizen friendly, CORPORATE citizen friendly!!!)
md
June 26th, 2012
10:38 am
“In short, GOP FAIL.”
More like US fail……as the law no longer matters and the rest of the world now knows it……
As for the aca:
“72 percent of Americans believe the individual mandate in the health care reform package is unconstitutional, while 20 percent believe it is constitutional.
Along party lines, a majority of Democrats – 56 percent – believe the health care mandate is unconstitutional and 37 percent defend it as constitutional. Among Republicans, 94 percent view that part of the law as unconstitutional.”
Hardly suggests the “American public” is in favor………….
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
10:45 am
Cheer up.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
10:54 am
Just how unpatriotic are conservatives?
regressives have no interest in preserving or protecting our system of government. To the contrary, they show every sign of wanting to be rid of it. In fact, regressives in Congress have substituted partisanship for patriotism, placing party loyalty above loyalty to America. The GOP’s highest-ranking member of Congress has said his “number one aim” is to unseat President Obama. For more than three years congressional Republicans have marched in lockstep, determined to do just that. They have brooked no compromise.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/26/real_patriotism_salpart/
Let’s get out the vote to ensure Conservatives get kicked to the street where they belong!
DawgDad
June 26th, 2012
11:02 am
Distortion: “. . . the American public is FOR the Affordable Healthcare Act (known the the GOP faithful as “OBAMACARE”). It is not that the citizenry is for a hand-out, but for care, both responsive and preventative. ”
As to the first statement, I’m not sure you have your facts straight. As for your second statement, it’s total puffery. Who’s NOT for “care”, “clean water”, “clean air”, etc.? Who’s to say Obamacare makes care better? From my perspective it’s effects have been the opposite. And, at what cost? Freedom?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
11:12 am
Sorry, but money does not equal free speech.
md
June 26th, 2012
11:35 am
“In fact, regressives in Congress have substituted partisanship for patriotism, placing party loyalty above loyalty to America. The GOP’s highest-ranking member of Congress has said his “number one aim” is to unseat President Obama.”
All a matter of perspective……….
And Finn……did you get my link showing how bogus your talking point about red states vs blue states really is??
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
11:54 am
no, didn’t get your link, md. There is nothing bogus about it. The bluer the state, the higher the income levels and the higher the income taxes going to government.
The redder the state, the more its population is in need of government support.
md
June 26th, 2012
11:59 am
Wrong Finn……you may want to go find the link instead of continuing to look so silly.
It has to do with demographics, not politics……think old people…..old people moving from blue states to red states to be exact……….
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 26th, 2012
12:27 pm
““In fact, regressives in Congress have substituted partisanship for patriotism, placing party loyalty above loyalty to America.”
———
Yep. Just look at all the jobs bills and budget cutting bills that have died in the Democrat Senate.
Rock On!
June 26th, 2012
12:48 pm
Never would I imagine in the greatest country on Earth would the Federal government totally turn it’s back on the citizens of one of it’s own states. I feel for the people of Arizona. This administration has basically told them “Arizona, you don’t count and we don’t care.”
Ray
June 30th, 2012
5:02 pm
‘Liberals have been working themselves into a frenzy about the possibility that the court’s four conservative justices and the less-predictable Anthony Kennedy will overturn the 2010 federal health-care reform, a.k.a. Obamacare.”
For millions of us, it will be the difference between life and death. Don’t believe me, read the AJC editiorial section 6/30/2012, by the President of Morehouse Medical school (Dr. Maupin).