« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: United States v. Arizona  (Read 2176 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
United States v. Arizona
« on: July 07, 2010, 10:02:21 PM »
Quote
If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.

Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?

So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.
Andy McCarthy @ The Corner

This sure is news to me.  I wonder if its news to Eric Holder as well?
Logged
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline cavegal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3015
  • Reputation: +105/-42
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2010, 10:10:31 PM »
With this bunch it never stops does it?
Logged


“Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind,”  Donald J.Trump. 6/13/16

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40571
  • Reputation: +2224/-127
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2010, 10:17:39 PM »
Sanctuary Cities are actually violating federal law, but Obama does nothing. States that allow the sale and possession of medical marijuana are violating federal law, yet Obama does nothing.  Arizona is actually trying to enforce federal laws and Obama sues them. What is wrong with this picture?
Logged

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2010, 10:19:11 PM »
Quote from: thundley4 on July 07, 2010, 10:17:39 PM
Sanctuary Cities are actually violating federal law, but Obama does nothing. States that allow the sale and possession of medical marijuana are violating federal law, yet Obama does nothing.  Arizona is actually trying to enforce federal laws and Obama sues them. What is wrong with this picture?

I'm going to go with my first guess and say "Obama".
Logged
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2010, 11:36:25 PM »
Didn't realize Rhode Island had a similar law.  I was aware of the county in NC, but not RI as a state. 

I think they only reason the government is suing Arizona is because Nappy (Janet Napolitano) came from there.  She would have NEVER signed a law like that.  She would have signed amnesty in a heartbeat.  Since this law is far from the opposite of amnesty, she wants something done about it.... even though she is no longer represents the state. 

That's just my two cents.
Logged
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2010, 01:00:48 AM »
Quote from: Evil_Conservative on July 07, 2010, 11:36:25 PM
Didn't realize Rhode Island had a similar law.  I was aware of the county in NC, but not RI as a state. 

I think they only reason the government is suing Arizona is because Nappy (Janet Napolitano) came from there.  She would have NEVER signed a law like that.  She would have signed amnesty in a heartbeat.  Since this law is far from the opposite of amnesty, she wants something done about it.... even though she is no longer represents the state. 

That's just my two cents.

Mecklenburg Co. (Charlotte, NC) is using the 287(g) program... it works a little different from the AZ and RI laws.  Once someone has been placed under arrest and taken downtown for processing/detention, their immigration status is verified with INS.  I don't think that statute allows officers to ask about immigration status and it is definitely not done in the field.
Logged
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline MrsSmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5977
  • Reputation: +466/-54
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2010, 05:56:41 AM »
I ran across a Boycott Mexico facebook page today...sounds pretty reasonable, given all the circumstances.
Logged
.
.

Antifa - the only fascists in America today.

Offline miskie

  • Mailman for the VRWC
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10461
  • Reputation: +1035/-54
  • Make America Great Again. Deport some DUmmies.
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2010, 06:03:54 AM »
Quote from: Evil_Conservative on July 07, 2010, 11:36:25 PM
Didn't realize Rhode Island had a similar law.  I was aware of the county in NC, but not RI as a state. 

I think they only reason the government is suing Arizona is because Nappy (Janet Napolitano) came from there.  She would have NEVER signed a law like that.  She would have signed amnesty in a heartbeat.  Since this law is far from the opposite of amnesty, she wants something done about it.... even though she is no longer represents the state. 

That's just my two cents.

Indeed - the state starting enforcing federal law after an illegal violently assaulted a woman there. as for the suit V Arizona, Obama doesn't really have a leg to stand on, as there are many many examples of concurrent law on the books, where the state enforces the national law at the state level.

With that being said, the suit does worry me, because even though there is supposed to be a separation of powers, Obama has probably gotten some assurances from some friendly Supreme Court members as there is no way this isn't going there.
Logged

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2010, 04:18:18 PM »
I wonder if this has anything to do with the DOJ's choice...

Arizona
McCain 53.8%
Obama 45.%

Rhode Island
Obama 63.1%
McCain 35.3%

Nah, of course not.
Logged
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline rich_t

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7942
  • Reputation: +386/-429
  • TANSTAAFL
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2010, 04:21:00 PM »
Quote
Obama doesn't really have a leg to stand on, as there are many many examples of concurrent law on the books, where the state enforces the national law at the state level

Like illegal drug laws?
Logged
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." --Norman Thomas, 1944

Offline Hawkgirl

  • Alpha Female
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4291
  • Reputation: +186/-73
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2010, 04:22:22 PM »
Who would have ever thought we'd see the day that the federal government would sue a state in it's own union. 

Libs =  Insanity.
Logged

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40571
  • Reputation: +2224/-127
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2010, 04:23:54 PM »
Quote from: Hawkgirl on July 08, 2010, 04:22:22 PM
Who would have ever thought we'd see the day that the federal government would sue a state in it's own union. 

Libs =  Insanity.


They are putting politics above what is good for the state of Arizona and the nation as a whole.
Logged

Offline Hawkgirl

  • Alpha Female
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4291
  • Reputation: +186/-73
Re: United States v. Arizona
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2010, 04:26:19 PM »
It reminds me of the old saying...when you put clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »