Arizona bill 1070 - Page 29 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-26-2012, 12:17 AM   #561
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 01:04 PM
Scalia might as well have his own show on Fox.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 05:42 PM   #562
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,066
Local Time: 01:04 PM
clearly.

Quote:
Justice Scalia must resign

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Wednesday, June 27, 12:21 PM

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.

He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.


“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem,” the politician-justice proclaimed. “Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.

“Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” Cue the tea party rally applause.

As it happens, Obama has stepped up immigration enforcement. But if the 76-year-old justice wants to dispute this, he is perfectly free as a citizen to join the political fray and take on the president. But he cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time.

Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That’s why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring. Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president.

Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. “My recusal is required if . . . my ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ ” he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney “in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation.”

Don’t you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan?

Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland’s University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

“I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo,” he declared in response to a question. “We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It’s a crazy idea to me.”

It was a fine speech for a campaign gathering, the appropriate venue for a man so eager to brand the things he disagrees with as crazy or mind-boggling. Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become.

E.J. Dionne Jr.: Justice Scalia should resign - The Washington Post
__________________

Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:11 PM   #563
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question.
It has everything to do with the case as does the Department of Homeland Security's canceling its agreements with Arizona law enforcement agencies allowing them to check the citizenship of suspected illegal immigrants. In other words, basically declaring amnesty for illegals in Arizona.

It's all related to Arizona 1070 and Scalia's question in his dissent.

Quote:
Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the
federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
Neither you nor E.J Dionne dare answer that question but listen to how Scalia answers it. And this is very important as it gets to the core of judicial originalism.

Quote:
A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, ci. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.
That is not only brilliant but no doubt true and a reminder of how far off the constitutional rails this country has strayed. No wonder the Left despises him.
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:17 PM   #564
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,266
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It has everything to do with the case as does the Department of Homeland Security's canceling its agreements with Arizona law enforcement agencies allowing them to check the citizenship of suspected illegal immigrants. In other words, basically declaring amnesty for illegals in Arizona.

It's all related to Arizona 1070 and Scalia's question in his dissent.



Neither you nor E.J Dionne dare answer that question but listen to how Scalia answers it. And this is very important as it gets to the core of judicial originalism.



That is not only brilliant but no doubt true and a reminder of how far off the constitutional rails this country has strayed. No wonder the Left despises him.


I agree
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:30 PM   #565
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,736
Local Time: 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Neither you nor E.J Dionne dare answer that question but listen to how Scalia answers it. And this is very important as it gets to the core of judicial originalism.
This really just shows how little you know about the history of originalism and when it surfaced its head, what it's been used for and how. Then again it probably would not bother you that originalism is political and politically motivated tool and unrelated to legal theory and legal analysis because it is used to justify your side's judicial activism (which of course you don't think exists, because only liberal judges do that).

I've read a lot of crap from people who know nothing about the law on this case in the last few days, I've gotta say. Can't wait for the Obamacare decision, I'm sure the commentary there is going to be quite the doozy.
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:51 PM   #566
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
This really just shows how little you know about the history of originalism and when it surfaced its head, what it's been used for and how. Then again it probably would not bother you that originalism is political and politically motivated tool and unrelated to legal theory and legal analysis because it is used to justify your side's judicial activism (which of course you don't think exists, because only liberal judges do that).

I've read a lot of crap from people who know nothing about the law on this case in the last few days, I've gotta say. Can't wait for the Obamacare decision, I'm sure the commentary there is going to be quite the doozy.
In deciding constitutional law, Originalism is only what "legal theory" used to be before "legal theory" started giving case law precedent over the actual Constitution.
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:53 PM   #567
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,736
Local Time: 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
In deciding constitutional law, Originalism is only what "legal theory" used to be before "legal theory" started giving case law precedent over the actual Constitution.
In your professional legal opinion.

Perhaps you'd prefer the French civil law system.
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 10:26 PM   #568
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
French civil law system.
Now speaking of, "nothing to do with the case in question."
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 11:09 PM   #569
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse

I agree
REALLY? THAT'S FUCKlNG GREAT.

We are so glad you stopped by to tell us this.
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 11:17 PM   #570
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Immature, rude, out of bounds, inappropriate, asinine... the list of adjectives to describe Phils' post are endless.
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 11:20 PM   #571
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,569
Local Time: 12:04 PM
I dunno, I think those words could apply to quite a few people's posts around here lately.
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 11:47 PM   #572
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,622
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
REALLY? THAT'S FUCKlNG GREAT.

We are so glad you stopped by to tell us this.
Not every opportunity for snark has to be taken.
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 09:06 AM   #573
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,736
Local Time: 01:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Now speaking of, "nothing to do with the case in question."
Again, goes to show how little you actually know about the legal system.
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2012, 10:59 PM   #574
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,266
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
REALLY? THAT'S FUCKlNG GREAT.

We are so glad you stopped by to tell us this.


the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2012, 11:09 PM   #575
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500
Immature, rude, out of bounds, inappropriate, asinine... the list of adjectives to describe Phils' post are endless.
Haha. This is rich.

I use one profanity (which was admittedly unnecessary) and this?
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2012, 10:24 PM   #576
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:04 PM
California Senate passes 'anti-Arizona' bill to limit federal detainers on illegal immigrants - CNN

Quote:
July 7, 2012
The California Senate has passed a so-called "anti-Arizona" bill to prevent racial profiling by police and allow local law agencies to ignore federal requests to detain nonviolent illegal immigrants for deportation, a state lawmaker said.
Rahm Emanuel Immigration Support: Mayor Aims To Make Chicago More Immigrant-Friendly

Quote:
July 10, 2012
Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Tuesday proposed a new ordinance that would specifically block undocumented immigrants in Chicago from being detained unless they were convicted of a serious crime or wanted on a criminal warrant.
I'm so glad the Arizona SCOTUS ruling made clear once-and-for-all that immigration law is under federal jurisdiction only.
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 11:24 AM   #577
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Quote:
But now, the adminstration will stop the deportation of young people who meet these criteria: 1.) Came to the United States under the age of sixteen; 2.) Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum; 3.) Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; 4.) Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; 5.) Are not above the age of thirty.

Hey Irvine, how do you propose we verify all this?
Answer:
Quote:
A top union official for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s administration has ordered ICE agents to blindly — and without any evidence — believe illegal immigrants if they claim they qualify for Obama’s administrative DREAM Act.


Quote:
Our orders are: If an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go.”

“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” he continued. “Even with the greatly relaxed policies, the alien is not required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria.”
Wow, aren't we all shocked?

I'd love to hear an Obama supporter defend this.
__________________

INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×