Jump to content


AZ SB 1070 Decision


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:45 PM

http://blogs.phoenix...urt_upholds.php

Another setback for Obummer.

http://www.supremeco.../11-182b5e1.pdf

#2 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:52 PM

Being facetious, I assume??

"It adds, "On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted."

#3 VwaP

VwaP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Sunny South Florida
  • Interests:Private investigator by day party gurl by night

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:55 PM

Jimmy Carter: US Has Lost Human Rights 'Moral Authority'
Monday, 25 Jun 2012 08:31 AM

By Greg McDonald


Former President Jimmy Carter says the United States has abandoned its role as the world's champion of human rights and cites the recent stories of targeted assassinations and drone attacks that have killed innocent civilians as "disturbing proof" of how the country has lost its "moral leadership." Writing in a New York Times op-ed piece published Monday, Carter delivered a blistering attack on the administrations of Barack Obama and George W. Bush — as well as Congress — accusing all of sanctioning and conducting foreign policy and counterterrorism efforts in a way that would have been unthinkable in years past.[/font]

Read more on Newsmax.com: Jimmy Carter: US Has Lost Human Rights 'Moral Authority'


#4 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:58 PM

Being facetious, I assume??

"It adds, "On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted."

They let stand the section on checking status of people under arrest. That is a Major change to the way things have always been, and a crushing rebuke to the administration. Is it not?

#5 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:23 PM

They let stand the section on checking status of people under arrest. That is a Major change to the way things have always been, and a crushing rebuke to the administration. Is it not?


I don't follow that tune too closely - the idea of checking people already under arrest seems OK to me! RIck Scott may not approve if it resulted in deportations.


It sounds like they defined parts of it, but largely agreed that the US Fed. Gov. is responsible for basic policy, not the local officials.

#6 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:25 PM



They let stand the section on checking status of people under arrest. That is a Major change to the way things have always been, and a crushing rebuke to the administration. Is it not?


I don't follow that tune too closely - the idea of checking people already under arrest seems OK to me! RIck Scott may not approve if it resulted in deportations.


It sounds like they defined parts of it, but largely agreed that the US Fed. Gov. is responsible for basic policy, not the local officials.

There's stuff in there for both sides. You can look at who dissented to get an idea of which way the decision went as a whole.

#7 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,731 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:28 PM


Being facetious, I assume??

"It adds, "On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted."

They let stand the section on checking status of people under arrest. That is a Major change to the way things have always been, and a crushing rebuke to the administration. Is it not?



#8 tq2000

tq2000

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,150 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:boats and bourbon

Posted 25 June 2012 - 04:16 PM

My understanding was that police always had the ability to check status on someone under arrest.

#9 NACRADUDE

NACRADUDE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,287 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C. via Hockeytown
  • Interests:Various women, various boats, and various states of consciousness.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 04:20 PM

Not just under arrest folks.


Supreme Court strikes down three of four provisions in Arizona's controversial immigration law, but for now upholds key provision to require police officers, during routine stops, to check immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.


I fucking love it.

#10 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,731 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:39 PM

Not just under arrest folks.


Supreme Court strikes down three of four provisions in Arizona's controversial immigration law, but for now upholds key provision to require police officers, during routine stops, to check immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.


I fucking love it.

Yeah that's how I read it. The other three provisions were correctly IMHO struck down. I think this might be described as a Rope a dope by AZ. Because the one they let stand is the one that was raising the biggest fuss from the left and the one that would be the easiest to enforce.

#11 NACRADUDE

NACRADUDE

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,287 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C. via Hockeytown
  • Interests:Various women, various boats, and various states of consciousness.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 05:49 PM


Not just under arrest folks.


Supreme Court strikes down three of four provisions in Arizona's controversial immigration law, but for now upholds key provision to require police officers, during routine stops, to check immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.


I fucking love it.

Yeah that's how I read it. The other three provisions were correctly IMHO struck down. I think this might be described as a Rope a dope by AZ. Because the one they let stand is the one that was raising the biggest fuss from the left and the one that would be the easiest to enforce.



Yep. Put some other fodder in there as long as you get the one that has the potential to make a difference.

#12 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 06:04 PM

I'd have to read it more carefully, but I am all for E-Verify and checking ID when stopped for an infraction.....so no big whoopie to me.

The larger issues are when and how we are going to do things right - a guest worker card and program, etc. etc. etc.

But, then again, this involves solving problems as opposed to yelling at each other - so it is not likely to get done.

#13 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 25 June 2012 - 06:16 PM


Not just under arrest folks.


Supreme Court strikes down three of four provisions in Arizona's controversial immigration law, but for now upholds key provision to require police officers, during routine stops, to check immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.


I fucking love it.

Yeah that's how I read it. The other three provisions were correctly IMHO struck down. I think this might be described as a Rope a dope by AZ. Because the one they let stand is the one that was raising the biggest fuss from the left and the one that would be the easiest to enforce.

The real blow to Obummer will be on Thursday.

#14 tq2000

tq2000

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,150 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:boats and bourbon

Posted 25 June 2012 - 06:18 PM

IANAL, but it looks to me like they did not rule on the constitutionality of that section, but sent it back to the state, which is why the ACLU may still get an injunction while it runs through the state courts. Seems that they would like to see how the state deals with it, and how it might actually be used before ruling on the constitutionality.

#15 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,731 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 25 June 2012 - 06:31 PM

IANAL, but it looks to me like they did not rule on the constitutionality of that section, but sent it back to the state, which is why the ACLU may still get an injunction while it runs through the state courts. Seems that they would like to see how the state deals with it, and how it might actually be used before ruling on the constitutionality.

Yep, The first Cop that asks the question will get his or her 15 minutes of fame.

#16 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 06:36 PM

Ah, so Roberts, the Business Lover, made certain that the illegals could work! He probably partied recently with Rick Scott and lamented over the idea of having Americans fill those positions.

Perfect.....

#17 saxdog

saxdog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,647 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:17 PM



Not just under arrest folks.


Supreme Court strikes down three of four provisions in Arizona's controversial immigration law, but for now upholds key provision to require police officers, during routine stops, to check immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.


I fucking love it.

Yeah that's how I read it. The other three provisions were correctly IMHO struck down. I think this might be described as a Rope a dope by AZ. Because the one they let stand is the one that was raising the biggest fuss from the left and the one that would be the easiest to enforce.

The real blow to Obummer will be on Thursday.


No doubt you are correct Sol. That ruling is going to give a lot of people a very clear understanding of what the Court has become. .

#18 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,721 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:37 PM

Ah, so Roberts, the Business Lover, made certain that the illegals could work! He probably partied recently with Rick Scott and lamented over the idea of having Americans fill those positions.

Perfect.....

Un-fuking-believable… even when Roberts sides with the liberals it has to be for because of some nefarious hidden agenda. They did a good job on you.

#19 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:02 PM

Doggie, Roberts is well known for being pro-business in virtually every way......it's not a reach to think that he does not like cheap labor like the rest of them. Not at all.

#20 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,166 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:15 PM

The administration cuts the decision off at the knees:

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.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said. http://www.washingto...on-agreements-/


Well there you go, the executive will control how, when, and where, who knew they had the teeth to bite back.

#21 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,721 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:16 PM

Doggie, Roberts is well known for being pro-business in virtually every way......it's not a reach to think that he does not like cheap labor like the rest of them. Not at all.

You might want to rephrase that so it supports your case, such as it is.

#22 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:22 PM

C'mon,. Doggie - wink wink wink - those illegals that Roberts wants to be able to solicit and take jobs are behind the BIG profits of the Ag Industry, constructions, meat packing, hospitality and much more!

Not only do they generate vast profits, but this keeps the white folks in line and working for less too - since the standard is set by what "an illegal will do the job for"......

Do you get my drift yet? Roberts and much of the current court have an almost perfect Chamber of Commerce rating...they are corporations dressed in robes. Good for profits = constitutional - yet another reason health care will probably do down. They wish to allow the corporations to take as much as possible of our GDP while we are sick.

#23 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,596 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:25 PM

Well, Cheney believed anything the President does is legal.

#24 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:39 PM

C'mon,. Doggie - wink wink wink - those illegals that Roberts wants to be able to solicit and take jobs are behind the BIG profits of the Ag Industry, constructions, meat packing, hospitality and much more!

Not only do they generate vast profits, but this keeps the white folks in line and working for less too - since the standard is set by what "an illegal will do the job for"......

Do you get my drift yet? Roberts and much of the current court have an almost perfect Chamber of Commerce rating...they are corporations dressed in robes. Good for profits = constitutional - yet another reason health care will probably do down. They wish to allow the corporations to take as much as possible of our GDP while we are sick.


Wow, you really hate business... what happened to you?

#25 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,721 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:46 PM

C'mon,. Doggie - wink wink wink - those illegals that Roberts wants to be able to solicit and take jobs are behind the BIG profits of the Ag Industry, constructions, meat packing, hospitality and much more!

Not only do they generate vast profits, but this keeps the white folks in line and working for less too - since the standard is set by what "an illegal will do the job for"......

Do you get my drift yet? Roberts and much of the current court have an almost perfect Chamber of Commerce rating...they are corporations dressed in robes. Good for profits = constitutional - yet another reason health care will probably do down. They wish to allow the corporations to take as much as possible of our GDP while we are sick.

Really?..."they are corporations dressed in robes"... but the other conservatives did not agree with Roberts...Can't have it both ways. Make up your mind if you still can.

#26 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,596 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:53 PM

http://movetoamend.o...eLogoJudges.jpg

#27 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,595 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:48 PM

The administration cuts the decision off at the knees:



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.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said. http://www.washingto...on-agreements-/


Well there you go, the executive will control how, when, and where, who knew they had the teeth to bite back.

So, Arizona will just hold them in a camp until Homeland Security shows up to take charge.

#28 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,166 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:51 PM


The administration cuts the decision off at the knees:



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.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won't change President Obama's decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

"We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities," one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won't be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

"We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona," the official said. http://www.washingto...on-agreements-/


Well there you go, the executive will control how, when, and where, who knew they had the teeth to bite back.

So, Arizona will just hold them in a camp until Homeland Security shows up to take charge.


I don't think it's in the budget as so many things are these days.

#29 Mike G

Mike G

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,324 posts
  • Location:Ventura County, CA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:27 PM

Scalia's rant, and demo reel for a Fox gig.

#30 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:29 PM

Scalia's rant, and demo reel for a Fox gig.


That guy is dangerous!

#31 jerseyguy

jerseyguy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts
  • Location:somewhere over the rainbow

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:41 PM

Scalia's rant, and demo reel for a Fox gig.

He makes Italians, Catholics, and people from New Jersey look bad. As a native New Jerseyan I can assure you that we do not need any help in looking bad.

#32 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,714 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:51 AM


Scalia's rant, and demo reel for a Fox gig.


That guy is dangerous!

What part of what Scalia said is wrong? Nothing AZ was doing was in contravention to immigration laws that were already on the books. I believe a state has the right to protect itself if the Federal gov't is in dereliction of its duty.

Personally, I think AZ should double down and immediately kick all illegal immigrant children out of school and refuse to educate them, deny all but life-saving medical care to illegals at its public hospitals and end any and all public services to illegals. Present proof of citizenship or legal visa status or you get nothing..... Next! Let the SCOTUS deal with that. I would LOVE for them to force AZ to spend state dollars on services to people that the Federal gov't refuses to deal with. OK, the Fed is supreme on matters of immigration issues.... fine. The state is supreme on matters of state services. I fail to see how they can be force to pay for people that are not supposed to be there in the 1st place.

#33 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,714 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:54 AM

The real blow to Obummer will be on Thursday.


I don't think that one will go as well for Obama as this one did. Although I do believe that AZ got exactly what it wanted in the end.

#34 VwaP

VwaP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Sunny South Florida
  • Interests:Private investigator by day party gurl by night

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:25 AM

http://www.realclear...g_anything.html

AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio on FOX News today: "I'm not stopping anything. I'm going to continue to enforce those state laws regardless of what the federal government is trying to put pressure on me to satisfy all these activists, which by the way are in front of my building right now."Three and half years they've been in front of my building. So, I'm not going to bend to the federal government, especially when we still have state laws to enforce."

#35 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,731 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:48 AM

The administration cuts the decision off at the knees:



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.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said. http://www.washingto...on-agreements-/


Well there you go, the executive will control how, when, and where, who knew they had the teeth to bite back.

Wow. This is getting scary. For 200+ years we have been a nation of laws. Last week Obama decided to shit on the constitution with his order to ignore current immigration laws. Now today he basically tells the supreme court to fuck off. Where all the people who were so concerned with GW's
"illegal" actions. These last two decisions top anything Bush was accused of.

#36 VwaP

VwaP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Sunny South Florida
  • Interests:Private investigator by day party gurl by night

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:56 AM


Who enforces US Supreme Court rulings?


Ultimately, it is the President of the United States who enforces Supreme Court rulings. The executive branch wields the police power of the US, subject to Congressional oversight and Constitutional restrictions. Without the force of the executive branch with its authority over the military, National Guard, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies, Supreme Court decisions would not be worth the paper they are written on. When a Supreme Court decision affects a state the state executive branch should enforce the decision, but if it does not, then the US executive branch makes the state obey it. This is one of the informal checks and balances of our governmental system. The Supreme Court will not get out of control, because of it's reliance on the executive branch to back up its decisions. "When the Supreme Court ordered desegregation of schools, the state of Alabama refused to allow African-American children into white schools. The President called out the National Guard to enforce the ruling and let a young African-American girl go into the white school.


>Read more: http://wiki.answers....s#ixzz1yrtCunW9



#37 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,469 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:10 AM

http://www.realclear...g_anything.html

AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio on FOX News today: "I'm not stopping anything. I'm going to continue to enforce those state laws regardless of what the federal government is trying to put pressure on me to satisfy all these activists, which by the way are in front of my building right now."Three and half years they've been in front of my building. So, I'm not going to bend to the federal government, especially when we still have state laws to enforce."

I'm sure Holder can find joe a nice pink jumpsuit that fits him.

#38 VwaP

VwaP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Sunny South Florida
  • Interests:Private investigator by day party gurl by night

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:17 AM

The House is scheduled to vote on recommendations that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. be held in contempt of Congress on Thursday, according to House Republican aides.



Republican leaders plan to bring the issue to the floor on Thursday, meaning lawmakers likely will vote on contempt charges on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to announce its ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 health-care reform law.



The timing likely deprives advocates for contempt charges of the big headlines they might have received if the vote were held another day this week.



House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Sunday that the vote could still be postponed or scrapped if Holder and Justice Department officials present congressional investigators with documents related to a probe intoOperation “Fast and Furious,” the botched gun-running operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives out of its Phoenix offices between 2009 and 2011.



If the House votes to hold him in contempt, Holder would be the first U.S. attorney general in history held in contempt of Congress. The matter would be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia — a Justice Department employee and Obama administration appointee — who would have to decide whether to bring criminal charges against the attorney general, his boss.





#39 sumpin

sumpin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,960 posts
  • Location:San Miguel
  • Interests:scallop mining and rudder fairing
    stair falling book cover mending

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:37 AM

C'mon,. Doggie - wink wink wink - those illegals that Roberts wants to be able to solicit and take jobs are behind the BIG profits of the Ag Industry, constructions, meat packing, hospitality and much more!

Not only do they generate vast profits, but this keeps the white folks in line and working for less too - since the standard is set by what "an illegal will do the job for"......

Do you get my drift yet? Roberts and much of the current court have an almost perfect Chamber of Commerce rating...they are corporations dressed in robes. Good for profits = constitutional - yet another reason health care will probably do down. They wish to allow the corporations to take as much as possible of our GDP while we are sick.




Tell me how I can be auto updated with your comments. Bad day at the office today but I can always count on you for a out loud laugh..
bad day cause our little big business was sucking the GDP right out of you while hiring yet another Vet and doing mid year reviews to hopefully pay some good young talent and increase our funding of college interns (paid of course)..

#40 opa1

opa1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • Location:Palm Beach Gardens, Florida
  • Interests:Golf, Sailing

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:49 AM

I don't believe that the Court upheld the fourth provision. I think that they didn't rule on that provision because it has not been enacted into law and therefore they felt that they could not rule on it. As soon as it is enacted into law, and as soon as there is an incident, then I will bet there will be another lawsuit and it will end up at the Court again. I think the Court will strike it down at that time. Just guessing on that decision. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were detained by the police and they demanded that I provide citizenship documents, I would be in a real bind. What documents? Am I now required to carry my birth certificate with me at all times? Would they send me off to be detained and dealt with by the Border Patrol? Kinda scary. Seems like it is getting time for a National ID Card. That would sure frost the butts of the Righties.

#41 the_abandoned_brane

the_abandoned_brane

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,226 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:11 AM

I don't believe that the Court upheld the fourth provision. I think that they didn't rule on that provision because it has not been enacted into law and therefore they felt that they could not rule on it. As soon as it is enacted into law, and as soon as there is an incident, then I will bet there will be another lawsuit and it will end up at the Court again. I think the Court will strike it down at that time. Just guessing on that decision. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were detained by the police and they demanded that I provide citizenship documents, I would be in a real bind. What documents? Am I now required to carry my birth certificate with me at all times? Would they send me off to be detained and dealt with by the Border Patrol? Kinda scary. Seems like it is getting time for a National ID Card. That would sure frost the butts of the Righties.

hey dumb dumb, legal permanent immigrants are required to carry their green card at all times by law.

#42 tq2000

tq2000

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,150 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:boats and bourbon

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:16 AM


I don't believe that the Court upheld the fourth provision. I think that they didn't rule on that provision because it has not been enacted into law and therefore they felt that they could not rule on it. As soon as it is enacted into law, and as soon as there is an incident, then I will bet there will be another lawsuit and it will end up at the Court again. I think the Court will strike it down at that time. Just guessing on that decision. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were detained by the police and they demanded that I provide citizenship documents, I would be in a real bind. What documents? Am I now required to carry my birth certificate with me at all times? Would they send me off to be detained and dealt with by the Border Patrol? Kinda scary. Seems like it is getting time for a National ID Card. That would sure frost the butts of the Righties.

hey dumb dumb, legal permanent immigrants are required to carry their green card at all times by law.


hey dumb dumb, citizens are not required to carry any documentation.

#43 Jon Eisberg

Jon Eisberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,994 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:07 PM


C'mon,. Doggie - wink wink wink - those illegals that Roberts wants to be able to solicit and take jobs are behind the BIG profits of the Ag Industry, constructions, meat packing, hospitality and much more!

Not only do they generate vast profits, but this keeps the white folks in line and working for less too - since the standard is set by what "an illegal will do the job for"......

Do you get my drift yet? Roberts and much of the current court have an almost perfect Chamber of Commerce rating...they are corporations dressed in robes. Good for profits = constitutional - yet another reason health care will probably do down. They wish to allow the corporations to take as much as possible of our GDP while we are sick.




Tell me how I can be auto updated with your comments. Bad day at the office today but I can always count on you for a out loud laugh..
bad day cause our little big business was sucking the GDP right out of you while hiring yet another Vet and doing mid year reviews to hopefully pay some good young talent and increase our funding of college interns (paid of course)..


Actually, he's largely correct...

Here's another chuckle for you, courtesy of the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR...


Anti-illegal immigration bill stokes backlash in Alabama fields

Farmers in states like Alabama that have passed strong anti-illegal immigration laws are fighting back, saying they are losing labor and that US workers are unwilling to take up farm work.

By Mark Guarino, Staff writer / October 22, 2011

Farmers fearing a labor shortage are protesting recent immigration laws they say are too harsh, forcing undocumented workers to flee to prevent deportation. They say US workers are unwilling to endure the rigorous conditions of farm work and that state legislators need to come up with solutions to prevent local agribusiness from going under.

...

The new immigration laws will result in a $40 million hit to the state’s economy, with 10,000 illegal workers, each making about $5,000 a year, set to leave, according to a report released this week by the University of Alabama’s Center for Business and Economic Research.

Farmers are routinely the first to criticize immigration-reform efforts that target illegal workers, says Leo Chavez, a labor and immigration expert at the University of California, Irvine.

“If you get tough on undocumented immigrants, they lose their main labor force,” Mr. Chavez says.


...

Advocates for immigration reform insist that the ultimate solution is for farmers to market their jobs to US workers, an approach they say would resonate at a time of high unemployment rates and a troubled economy.

Yet agribusiness leaders say US workers are not accustomed to farm work and would drive up costs by demanding higher pay and benefits.

This debate is also raging in Georgia, where farmers are protesting an immigration bill passed in the spring that is similar to the one in Alabama. Among its measures is a requirement forcing businesses with 10 employees or more to use a federal database to verify that each worker is allowed to work in the state legally.

Industry groups representing farming, poultry, construction, and tourism interests say the new law will result in millions of lost dollars for the state economy. The Georgia Department of Agriculture reports that this year’s harvest was short 11,000 workers, which farming advocates say was the result of Mexican immigrants leaving the state.


A labor shortage of 5,244 workers in seven of the state’s primary crops – blueberry, blackberry, Vidalia onion, bell pepper, squash, cucumber, and watermelon – resulted in a $75 million loss, according to the University of Georgia Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development.

The losses are “pretty significant,” says John McKissick, an agricultural economist at the University of Georgia. He says farmers participating in the survey say “they will either reduce acreage next year or reduce their harvest” as a result.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/1022/Anti-illegal-immigration-bill-stokes-backlash-in-Alabama-fields



#44 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:26 PM

Wow. This is getting scary. For 200+ years we have been a nation of laws. Last week Obama decided to shit on the constitution with his order to ignore current immigration laws. Now today he basically tells the supreme court to fuck off. Where all the people who were so concerned with GW's
"illegal" actions. These last two decisions top anything Bush was accused of.


That's pretty funny.

Courts told Bush his renditions, unending detentions, failure to enforce the Clean Air act and much more - were illegal..........now we are supposed to take your or Faux News word that the thousands of executive orders and decisions made over the years are MORE illegal than those???

Funny stuff. Well, actually not funny. Sad. You cons have gotten so acclimated to throwing out FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) to ruin our county that is now comes out naturally with every sentence and action.....

Bush did thousands of things similar to this and, since they were not illegal, they never went to court. He rescinded vast numbers of Clinton era regulations for energy efficiency the DAY he took office.

TM, it's time for you to read up on executive branch. They don't need an Act of Congress to buy toilet paper. If you don't like them, you vote them out.

In the meantime, you can study some of the court cases AGAINST Bush........
http://en.wikipedia....dan_v._Rumsfeld
http://en.wikipedia....mediene_v._Bush
http://en.wikipedia....i/Rasul_v._Bush
http://www.washingto...7040200487.html


Worse than Bush - crazy man! These were actual laws that Bush passed which were overturned by the SCOTUS.

There are many more court cases in lower courts which ruled against Bush.

TM, you should do some reading sometime. It will be preferable to shouting "this is worse than Bush", when GW arguably was one of the worst Presidents in history for this and MANY other reasons.

#45 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,595 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:33 PM


Wow. This is getting scary. For 200+ years we have been a nation of laws. Last week Obama decided to shit on the constitution with his order to ignore current immigration laws. Now today he basically tells the supreme court to fuck off. Where all the people who were so concerned with GW's
"illegal" actions. These last two decisions top anything Bush was accused of.


That's pretty funny.

Courts told Bush his renditions, unending detentions, failure to enforce the Clean Air act and much more - were illegal..........now we are supposed to take your or Faux News word that the thousands of executive orders and decisions made over the years are MORE illegal than those???

Funny stuff. Well, actually not funny. Sad. You cons have gotten so acclimated to throwing out FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) to ruin our county that is now comes out naturally with every sentence and action.....

Bush did thousands of things similar to this and, since they were not illegal, they never went to court. He rescinded vast numbers of Clinton era regulations for energy efficiency the DAY he took office.

TM, it's time for you to read up on executive branch. They don't need an Act of Congress to buy toilet paper. If you don't like them, you vote them out.

In the meantime, you can study some of the court cases AGAINST Bush........
http://en.wikipedia....dan_v._Rumsfeld
http://en.wikipedia....mediene_v._Bush
http://en.wikipedia....i/Rasul_v._Bush
http://www.washingto...7040200487.html


Worse than Bush - crazy man! These were actual laws that Bush passed which were overturned by the SCOTUS.

There are many more court cases in lower courts which ruled against Bush.

TM, you should do some reading sometime. It will be preferable to shouting "this is worse than Bush", when GW arguably was one of the worst Presidents in history for this and MANY other reasons.

Maybe you should unfixate on Bush and look at those decisions on the merits.

BTW, how much has Obama done on renditions, closing Gitmo, civil trials for terrorists, etc.?

#46 learningj24

learningj24

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:47 PM



Wow. This is getting scary. For 200+ years we have been a nation of laws. Last week Obama decided to shit on the constitution with his order to ignore current immigration laws. Now today he basically tells the supreme court to fuck off. Where all the people who were so concerned with GW's
"illegal" actions. These last two decisions top anything Bush was accused of.


That's pretty funny.

Courts told Bush his renditions, unending detentions, failure to enforce the Clean Air act and much more - were illegal..........now we are supposed to take your or Faux News word that the thousands of executive orders and decisions made over the years are MORE illegal than those???

Funny stuff. Well, actually not funny. Sad. You cons have gotten so acclimated to throwing out FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) to ruin our county that is now comes out naturally with every sentence and action.....

Bush did thousands of things similar to this and, since they were not illegal, they never went to court. He rescinded vast numbers of Clinton era regulations for energy efficiency the DAY he took office.

TM, it's time for you to read up on executive branch. They don't need an Act of Congress to buy toilet paper. If you don't like them, you vote them out.

In the meantime, you can study some of the court cases AGAINST Bush........
http://en.wikipedia....dan_v._Rumsfeld
http://en.wikipedia....mediene_v._Bush
http://en.wikipedia....i/Rasul_v._Bush
http://www.washingto...7040200487.html


Worse than Bush - crazy man! These were actual laws that Bush passed which were overturned by the SCOTUS.

There are many more court cases in lower courts which ruled against Bush.

TM, you should do some reading sometime. It will be preferable to shouting "this is worse than Bush", when GW arguably was one of the worst Presidents in history for this and MANY other reasons.

Maybe you should unfixate on Bush and look at those decisions on the merits.

BTW, how much has Obama done on renditions, closing Gitmo, civil trials for terrorists, etc.?


Not sure about renditions, we're they stopped under W after the press found out?, Obama was prevented by Congress from closing Gitmo and I believe civil trials for terrorism suspects. Sounds like he's following the Constitution by staying within his areas of authority.



Telling the Supremes to buzz off is a Presidential tradition going back to Jackson in Worchester v Georgia. However disconfiting the "unitary executive" theory is, Congress has let it grow.

#47 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,595 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:50 PM



I don't believe that the Court upheld the fourth provision. I think that they didn't rule on that provision because it has not been enacted into law and therefore they felt that they could not rule on it. As soon as it is enacted into law, and as soon as there is an incident, then I will bet there will be another lawsuit and it will end up at the Court again. I think the Court will strike it down at that time. Just guessing on that decision. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were detained by the police and they demanded that I provide citizenship documents, I would be in a real bind. What documents? Am I now required to carry my birth certificate with me at all times? Would they send me off to be detained and dealt with by the Border Patrol? Kinda scary. Seems like it is getting time for a National ID Card. That would sure frost the butts of the Righties.

hey dumb dumb, legal permanent immigrants are required to carry their green card at all times by law.


hey dumb dumb, citizens are not required to carry any documentation.

So, that's another statute the illegal immigrants can be locked up on. Good.

#48 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,721 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:55 PM

http://www.realclear...g_anything.html

AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio on FOX News today: "I'm not stopping anything. I'm going to continue to enforce those state laws regardless of what the federal government is trying to put pressure on me to satisfy all these activists, which by the way are in front of my building right now."Three and half years they've been in front of my building. So, I'm not going to bend to the federal government, especially when we still have state laws to enforce."

Sheriff Joe reminds me of Obama. Two peas in a pod.

#49 tq2000

tq2000

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,150 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:boats and bourbon

Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:11 PM




I don't believe that the Court upheld the fourth provision. I think that they didn't rule on that provision because it has not been enacted into law and therefore they felt that they could not rule on it. As soon as it is enacted into law, and as soon as there is an incident, then I will bet there will be another lawsuit and it will end up at the Court again. I think the Court will strike it down at that time. Just guessing on that decision. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were detained by the police and they demanded that I provide citizenship documents, I would be in a real bind. What documents? Am I now required to carry my birth certificate with me at all times? Would they send me off to be detained and dealt with by the Border Patrol? Kinda scary. Seems like it is getting time for a National ID Card. That would sure frost the butts of the Righties.

hey dumb dumb, legal permanent immigrants are required to carry their green card at all times by law.


hey dumb dumb, citizens are not required to carry any documentation.

So, that's another statute the illegal immigrants can be locked up on. Good.


Once again, I think you are replying to the wrong post. I was pointing out the lack of a statute requiring citizens to carry proof of citizenship with them at all times. That would have nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

#50 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,566 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:14 PM



I don't believe that the Court upheld the fourth provision. I think that they didn't rule on that provision because it has not been enacted into law and therefore they felt that they could not rule on it. As soon as it is enacted into law, and as soon as there is an incident, then I will bet there will be another lawsuit and it will end up at the Court again. I think the Court will strike it down at that time. Just guessing on that decision. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were detained by the police and they demanded that I provide citizenship documents, I would be in a real bind. What documents? Am I now required to carry my birth certificate with me at all times? Would they send me off to be detained and dealt with by the Border Patrol? Kinda scary. Seems like it is getting time for a National ID Card. That would sure frost the butts of the Righties.

hey dumb dumb, legal permanent immigrants are required to carry their green card at all times by law.


hey dumb dumb, citizens are not required to carry any documentation.


legal permanent immigrants are not citizens, are they?

#51 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:28 PM




I don't believe that the Court upheld the fourth provision. I think that they didn't rule on that provision because it has not been enacted into law and therefore they felt that they could not rule on it. As soon as it is enacted into law, and as soon as there is an incident, then I will bet there will be another lawsuit and it will end up at the Court again. I think the Court will strike it down at that time. Just guessing on that decision. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were detained by the police and they demanded that I provide citizenship documents, I would be in a real bind. What documents? Am I now required to carry my birth certificate with me at all times? Would they send me off to be detained and dealt with by the Border Patrol? Kinda scary. Seems like it is getting time for a National ID Card. That would sure frost the butts of the Righties.

hey dumb dumb, legal permanent immigrants are required to carry their green card at all times by law.


hey dumb dumb, citizens are not required to carry any documentation.


legal permanent immigrants are not citizens, are they?

That's the cruxt of it, right there. Not a big deal for citizens that have the proper appearance. But for those who look like they might be illegal... better carry your papers or be ready to spend some quality time whilst being checked out. That's why the Court left the door open to revisit the issue when it comes back as an "as applied" challenge.

They couldn't see that it would automatically be unconstitutional, so it survived the facial challenge. What do you think are the odds of the good sheriff being careful not to step across the line to avoid creating an example for an as-applied challenge?

#52 tq2000

tq2000

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,150 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:boats and bourbon

Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:34 PM




I don't believe that the Court upheld the fourth provision. I think that they didn't rule on that provision because it has not been enacted into law and therefore they felt that they could not rule on it. As soon as it is enacted into law, and as soon as there is an incident, then I will bet there will be another lawsuit and it will end up at the Court again. I think the Court will strike it down at that time. Just guessing on that decision. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were detained by the police and they demanded that I provide citizenship documents, I would be in a real bind. What documents? Am I now required to carry my birth certificate with me at all times? Would they send me off to be detained and dealt with by the Border Patrol? Kinda scary. Seems like it is getting time for a National ID Card. That would sure frost the butts of the Righties.

hey dumb dumb, legal permanent immigrants are required to carry their green card at all times by law.


hey dumb dumb, citizens are not required to carry any documentation.


legal permanent immigrants are not citizens, are they?


Of course not, but the point is that you can not determine if someone is a legal permanent resident, citizen, or illegal alien without requiring all three groups of people to show their proof of status. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp. You can not recognize a citizen visually, therefor you can not tell whether you are asking papers from a citizen or a legal permanent resident. opa1 is correct, if you are going to allow cops to check the status of anyone whether in custody or not, then citizens will need to be able to prove their status just as legal residents would, because........................ you can't tell them apart visually, you need documentation to do that.

#53 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:13 PM

BTW, how much has Obama done on renditions, closing Gitmo, civil trials for terrorists, etc.?


I assume he is following the ruling of the SCOTUS or else there would be cases lined up to overrule him.

I don't think those rulings said the existence of Gitmo was the problem - it is the rights they have...right?

Oh, and as you know, Your Team would not allow the funding to close Gitmo. You can't go around yelling at Obama for allowing the legislative branch to do their thing...and then yell when he doesn't!

Double Jeopardy!

But to answer your query about BUSH, GW - YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STATED OBAMIE WAS MUCH WORSE!

I was simply answering your questions on that matter. If you don't want to talk about GW's record, don't bring it up.Posted Image

#54 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,731 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:33 PM



BTW, how much has Obama done on renditions, closing Gitmo, civil trials for terrorists, etc.?


I assume he is following the ruling of the SCOTUS or else there would be cases lined up to overrule him.

I don't think those rulings said the existence of Gitmo was the problem - it is the rights they have...right?

Oh, and as you know, Your Team would not allow the funding to close Gitmo. You can't go around yelling at Obama for allowing the legislative branch to do their thing...and then yell when he doesn't!

Double Jeopardy!

But to answer your query about BUSH, GW - YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STATED OBAMIE WAS MUCH WORSE!

I was simply answering your questions on that matter. If you don't want to talk about GW's record, don't bring it up.Posted Image

confusion runs strongly in this one

#55 saxdog

saxdog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,647 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:34 PM





I don't believe that the Court upheld the fourth provision. I think that they didn't rule on that provision because it has not been enacted into law and therefore they felt that they could not rule on it. As soon as it is enacted into law, and as soon as there is an incident, then I will bet there will be another lawsuit and it will end up at the Court again. I think the Court will strike it down at that time. Just guessing on that decision. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I were detained by the police and they demanded that I provide citizenship documents, I would be in a real bind. What documents? Am I now required to carry my birth certificate with me at all times? Would they send me off to be detained and dealt with by the Border Patrol? Kinda scary. Seems like it is getting time for a National ID Card. That would sure frost the butts of the Righties.

hey dumb dumb, legal permanent immigrants are required to carry their green card at all times by law.


hey dumb dumb, citizens are not required to carry any documentation.


legal permanent immigrants are not citizens, are they?

That's the cruxt of it, right there. Not a big deal for citizens that have the proper appearance. But for those who look like they might be illegal... better carry your papers or be ready to spend some quality time whilst being checked out. That's why the Court left the door open to revisit the issue when it comes back as an "as applied" challenge.

They couldn't see that it would automatically be unconstitutional, so it survived the facial challenge. What do you think are the odds of the good sheriff being careful not to step across the line to avoid creating an example for an as-applied challenge?



About as good as mine are of spending some time below deck with Charlize Theron.

#56 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,595 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:36 PM



BTW, how much has Obama done on renditions, closing Gitmo, civil trials for terrorists, etc.?



But to answer your query about BUSH, GW - YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STATED OBAMIE WAS MUCH WORSE!

You mind producing the cite on that one? It is possible that I said such a thing in regard to one specific issue but, I don't recall ever making that as an individual case.

#57 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,035 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:41 PM

Seems the sheriffs and city cops of Arizona (other than Joe) are now trying to figure out how to do this legally, and one option is asking every person for documentation.

If they don't check and an "illegal" commits a crime they are concerned that they will be sued by the victim.

If they do check, and base it on name, skin color, etc, they are concerned about being sued for profiling.

So - what option do they have? Check everyone.



So - if you're an AZ local, or are traveling through, bring your passport…..

#58 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:30 PM

Posted Image

#59 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,731 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:47 PM




BTW, how much has Obama done on renditions, closing Gitmo, civil trials for terrorists, etc.?



But to answer your query about BUSH, GW - YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STATED OBAMIE WAS MUCH WORSE!

You mind producing the cite on that one? It is possible that I said such a thing in regard to one specific issue but, I don't recall ever making that as an individual case.

All us cons look alike in craigers world.

#60 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:15 PM

confusion runs strongly in this one


Yeah, you guys double teamed and I responded to both!

Sorry......

I then must assume you want to hear about GW when you mention that Obama's tiny specks in his eye are somehow bigger than the LOGS in GW's.

Realistically, you'd be much better off not bringing up the Bush record, as it makes you look as if you consider him something other than a danger to this country and the world.

#61 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:19 PM


C'mon,. Doggie - wink wink wink - those illegals that Roberts wants to be able to solicit and take jobs are behind the BIG profits of the Ag Industry, constructions, meat packing, hospitality and much more!

Not only do they generate vast profits, but this keeps the white folks in line and working for less too - since the standard is set by what "an illegal will do the job for"......

Do you get my drift yet? Roberts and much of the current court have an almost perfect Chamber of Commerce rating...they are corporations dressed in robes. Good for profits = constitutional - yet another reason health care will probably do down. They wish to allow the corporations to take as much as possible of our GDP while we are sick.




Tell me how I can be auto updated with your comments. Bad day at the office today but I can always count on you for a out loud laugh..
bad day cause our little big business was sucking the GDP right out of you while hiring yet another Vet and doing mid year reviews to hopefully pay some good young talent and increase our funding of college interns (paid of course)..


You must have not read that recent piece I posted on Rick Scott, the GOP Darling who just invited employers in Florida to hire and keep illegals! Do you need that cite, also??

Congrats for hiring the vets, although I really hope that not too much more tax money is headed your way for doing so. Redistribution of my tax money to employers is not in the Constitution.

#62 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,731 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:27 PM



confusion runs strongly in this one


Yeah, you guys double teamed and I responded to both!

Sorry......

I then must assume you want to hear about GW when you mention that Obama's tiny specks in his eye are somehow bigger than the LOGS in GW's.

Realistically, you'd be much better off not bringing up the Bush record, as it makes you look as if you consider him something other than a danger to this country and the world.

I would take GW over the current occupant any day of the week.

Please share with me an example of GW's. DOJ filing suit against a state for enacting a law. He didn't like. Please show a case where his administration lost to the supreme court and within 3 hours announced that he was declaring immediate policies that attempt to nullify that same SC ruling. I await your reply

#63 TMSAIL

TMSAIL

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,731 posts
  • Location:NW Chicago/Des Plaines

Posted 26 June 2012 - 11:18 PM

Hey craigirl. Still waiting for those cites.

A akaGP flashback

Chirp Chirp Chirp.

#64 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,334 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 26 June 2012 - 11:23 PM

You must have not read that recent piece I posted on Rick Scott, the GOP Darling who just invited employers in Florida to hire and keep illegals! Do you need that cite, also??

Scott isn't really the GOP darling. Remember, Bill McCollum was the chosen one for The Party in the last cycle, and Scott buried him under a mound of greenbacks, covered with layers of electronic feces. There were very bad feelings after that, and The Party took some time to warm up to him. Scott is not quite the Party Animal folks make him out to be, and I sure don't see him getting a lot of face time with Gov. Romney on his visits to the state.

#65 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,595 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 11:29 PM

Declare illegal immigrants varmints.

#66 Gouvernail

Gouvernail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,978 posts
  • Location:Austin Texas
  • Interests:margaritas, hippie chicks, durable flying discs for retriever dog play

Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:43 PM






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users