She sure is giddy over this one. Do you think they took the vote while she was still in there? How bizarre.
I expect some parts of the AZ law will be upheld and other parts overturned. There were about 10 parts.
Whatever the outcome, it will not bode well for Republicans who are trying to capture a few Latino votes.
Arizona’s SB1070 is a fairly hostile law to to most immigrants.
Obama’s lawyer is the shiznit!!! Between him and Holder, only the best and brightest in this Administration!
I agree that Obama’s opposition to the Arizone law will help his chances of winning this year’s presidential election by capturing Latino voters. Repugs are not interested in winning their votes and that will hurt their chances of winning.
When Latinos decide to become full fledged US citizens, then that will no longer be the case, but while they still support their illegal relatives it will continue to be an issue.
Good question from the court. How can the federal government prevent a state from protecting its citizens? The law does no harm to legal citizens other than asking for proof of identity as occurs on a daily basis in our lives. Naturalized citizens must learn some basic English, therefore no English, big red flag. Simple as that.
Wait a minute…this is going to ensure an Obama victory, and Jan Brewer is counting chickens before they hatch? Want to make sure I’m sure that I’m following along, here!
This is bad news for the Demoncrats, who were licking their chops dreaming of a poor, uneducated, and totally reliant block of voters to exploit. Sorry!
There is nothing hostile about SB 1070 towards legal immigrants. I’ll agree that to your average machete-wielding MS13 member, it might seem hostile, so I suppose that’s not good for Obama’s base.
SA, you don’t have to be a citizen to have equal protection. Everyone within our borders is protected by the same laws. Many people live in this country their entire lives without becoming citizens. They come from all over the world. Many of them are here because they married an American. I know people from England, Holland, Australian, Mexico, Guatamala, Germany, who are legal residents but not citizens.
Pokie, I am not counting any chickens here. Do you not agree that the AZ law is not popular with Hispanic residents? Do you think it will capture Hispanic votes for the Republican party? I don’t think it will be helpful to them either way.
@Pokie, you are aware that there are a whole bunch of folks out there who aren’t macherte wielding MS13 members nor are they legal immigrants? You know, people who behave themselves?
Did I ever tell you about the machete murder I saw at Springfield Mall about 10 years ago? It was terrifying….but I digress….
I am all in favor of crooks, thugs, law-breakers etc getting arrested, incarcerated, and when time served is over, deported. Please make that distinction.
Your remark about” poor, uneducated and totally reliant block of voters is such bullsh!t .”
I think you might want to take another look at the typical hispanic voter. Many of them are as educated as you and I. The operative word here is CITIZEN. Citizens vote. The descriptors you just used don’t usually vote. They aren’t citizens.
However, many Latino voters feel very targeted and yes, they often do represent a voting block–sorta like southerners, women, twenty somethings, seniors, etc. The Republicans need to do some quick turn-around here. Actually, Rick Perry was sort of on the right track.
I agree that sb1070 is overwhelmingly popular with American citizens and those Hispanics who came here legally and are proud to have done it right. I agree that SB1070 is very unpopular with groups such as Surenos, MS13, Mexican Mafia, Vatos Locos, and the good folks who hang around the 7-11 on Coverstone. I imagine SB1070 is very unpopular with coyotes who rely on bringing female immigrants for sex slave income and Democrats who dream of a super-fast breeding reliant voting block. It would be very unpopular with criminals who come across the border, kill US citizens and trash our deserts. You think this’ll cost Romney the election? I’m cool with that.
SB1070 really does nothing to stop drug/border violence. Murder is illegal without SB1070. You must have a ton of red herrings in that red herring cart this morning.
I doubt that those people you think are hanging out at Coverstone really give much thought to SB1070. What do they give a crap what’s going on in AZ? They aren
t there and I am willing to bet very few of those folks, if any, vote.
You are deluding yourself if you believe what you just said.
I am not a huge states rights advocate. I guess I had that beaten out of my ancetors 150 years ago.
You folks bringing up the War of Northern Aggression never ceases to amuse me.
It was drummed into our heads since birth, pokie. Some things you don’t forget. You know whose likeness sits on the desk right next to me?
I don’t know….Bobby Lee?
Actually, there is something interesting going on with this topic. Marco Rubio has been going around with Romney saying some really dumb things on this topic. As one of the freshman senators who came in on a wave of conservative backlash, he really climbed into bed with Juan McAmnesty and Lindsey Grahamnesty! That’s a big deal for Republicans! I’ve always said, the republicans are perfectly capable to screwing themselves!!
Yes, pokie, bobby Lee. It was actually given to me by one of my NJ friends. Strange how life works.
Rickey Bobby!
Senator Rubio is not a machete wielding gang member, stupid.
Typical liberal name-calling. That and censorship is really the only way the left can win an argument or even make a point.
@pokie
This from the person who implied Elena and I were baby killers yesterday? Sigh…how the worm doth turn.
Good. Look at the thread you refer to, and see there is no name-calling, only liberals putting words in my mouth, and accusing me of saying things I never said. Anyone with a brain can understand I’m talking about the “Doctors”, not you and Elena. Meanwhile, you’ll go to any length to protect liberal name-callers. Not your typical idealogue blog? Uh-huh. You really couldn’t possibly be more liberal in your double-standards. And what really twists you around is that you know I’m right.
Only you know you are right. My only objection was your terminology. I could be a lot more liberal ….lots and lots more liberal. I doubt if it will happen though. What names have I called you other than pokie which is not really a name. As a matte of fact, who DEFENDED your choice of monikers?
You are not as liberal as Elena, that is correct. And look, I’ve got NOTHING against Elena, but for some reason, y’all just went nuts! Even still, I never said you called me a name, and I never called you or Elena a name. If you want to see name-calling, refer to post #17, a liberal doing typical name-calling, and you support it……but we all know why. Nothing wrong with my moniker (especially if I hadn’t TOLD y’all it was to annoy). I don’t want to drag it up again, because I’ve really never seen people so incapacitated by their emotions. That’s how an Obama gets into office!
@SlowpokeRodriguez Interesting. Try calling Censored or Starry “stupid” without provocation, and watch the fur fly!
Going back to the question of how can the federal government stop a state from protecting [the safety] of its citizens. The general, first level answer is that it can’t. That goes only far enough to get us to the next level question as to how the state is purporting to afford that protection. If it is doing so by instituting its own foreign policy, or own immigration policy or banning guns statewide, or abolishing the right of habeas corpus, or banning peaceful gatherings of citizens, the state’s general powers of the police run into a wall of federalism as built into the architecture of the Constitution. This is why Arizona’s law will not be upheld by the Supreme Court, with the possible exception of checking for status coincident to an arrest. The latter may survive (as the colloquy with the Justices indicated) simply because there is so much already in place that implies permission from the federal government to ascertain that information. However, even that provision (one of four that is at issue in the Arizona case) will be strictly limited by the Court’s ruling.
Morning, Scout. When do you think the ruling will be announced?
They clear out all the pending decisions from the current term (Oct 2011 to June 2012) no later than the end of June. So one gets an avalanche of decisions in June. If the decision is relatively simple in its structure and the internal views of the Justices don’t change much when drafts are reviewed, a decision can pop out earlier. I think health care will be complicated, immigration will be relatively simple. So, although health care was argued a few weeks before immigration, it’s possible that immigration will come out first.