Dems Vow to Kill AZ Immigration Law?...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by get_involved, Apr 25, 2012.

  1. get_involved
    Offline

    get_involved Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,036
    Thanks Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +565
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Ed Spacer
    Offline

    Ed Spacer BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,986
    Thanks Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    georgia
    Ratings:
    +208
    Not going to happen. Thank the Bush admin for appointing judges that are tearing the commie dems case apart to bits.lawyer for WH really stumbled.
    go to DRUDGE REPORT 2012®
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. bitterlyclingin
    Offline

    bitterlyclingin Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,076
    Thanks Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +449
    [Is Donald Verilli that bad a lawyer, or are the cases his bosses, Obama and Holder, are asking him to argue that ridiculiously contemptible? The Big "O" has no intention of enforcing this nations immigration laws because he wants to dilute out those people that hold this nation's heritage, traditions, founders, and its Constitution with some respect. It is especially so because Mr Obama has absolutely no respect himself for any one of them, his ego the size of Michael Moore's @ss.]

    "At that time, the local bar was buzzing about a lawyer who had a really bad day in court: he was kicked to death by a moose in the parking lot of the federal courthouse in Anchorage. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli didn’t have that bad a day today in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Arizona’s immigration law is invalid by virtue of federal pre-emption, but he was kicked about a good bit by the justices.

    On Twitter, Byron York asked: “Question for legal types: Is Donald Verrilli bad at his job or just burdened by having to defend the indefensible?” You can read the entire argument here and draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion, the problem was not with Verrilli but rather with the quality of the arguments that he was required to make by his client, the Obama administration.

    Justice Sotomayor was commenting here on an extraordinary aspect of the Obama administration’s position, to the effect that it is OK if individual Arizona law enforcement officers decide to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, but if the state directs them all to cooperate, it is somehow unconstitutional. The Obama administration literally argued that for a state to engage in “systematic cooperation” with the federal government on immigration is unlawful. We can’t blame Mr. Verrilli for his inability to sell that bizarre argument. We do blame Barack Obama and Eric Holder for trying to assert it.

    Of course, what is going on here is that the Obama administration doesn’t want to enforce the immigration laws that Congress has enacted. The essence of its position in the Arizona case is that the federal government has the right to decide not to enforce the law, and if it so decides, then no state has the power, under the Constitution, to do anything that would tend to enforce those federal laws. So if the Obama administration decides that it will gain political advantage by ignoring federal laws against illegal immigration, states like Arizona just have to take the consequences without complaining

    That proposition–the real essence of the Obama administration’s case–is not one that can survive the light of day. Thus, near the end of Verrilli’s argument, Justice Kennedy cut to the chase:

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: So you’re saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws?

    GENERAL VERRILLI: No. We have a legitimate interest in enforcing the law, of course, but it needs to be — but these — this Court has said over and over again, has recognized that the — the balance of interest that has to be achieved in enforcing the — the immigration laws is exceedingly delicate and complex, and it involves consideration of foreign relations, it involves humanitarian concerns, and it also involves public order and public –

    That answer was incoherent, obviously, but not because Verrilli is a fool; rather, because the Obama administration’s position is indefensible."

    A Bad Day In Court for the Obama Administration | Power Line
     
  4. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    good for chuck... it won't pass because the repubs will block it.

    but that's ok... it reminds hispanic voters what the right thinks of them... you know, while they try to use rubio to bridge a 70 point gap. *shrug*
     
  5. Conservative
    Offline

    Conservative Type 40

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    17,082
    Thanks Received:
    2,026
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +2,030
    BEST part of that post
     
  6. Conservative
    Offline

    Conservative Type 40

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    17,082
    Thanks Received:
    2,026
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +2,030
    No, it reminds LEGAL Hispanic voters what the right thinks of ILLEGAL immigrants who come here and take jobs from LEGAL immigrants and citizens.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    actually, it doesn't make any sense.

    but whatever.
     
  8. Conservative
    Offline

    Conservative Type 40

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    17,082
    Thanks Received:
    2,026
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +2,030
    you are correct... the Obama administration, telling AZ they cannot have a policy that enforces a federal law, doesn't make sense. Glad we agree on that.
     
  9. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,512
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,381
    Actually, the hispanics are starting to see how the dems are exploiting them...just like they segregate and isolate every other group for exploitation. But then again, Chuck refers to us all as the serfs, little chatter people.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  10. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,205
    Thanks Received:
    6,142
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +20,151
    According to the left, Hispanics are leaving the US en masse. How they going to vote? Make up your mind. Either they are leaving or staying.
     

Share This Page