Everyone on USMB Is Guilty of Breaking AZ Law

[IndependntLogic]

I've been here in Surprise, AZ less than a week and my enjoyment of the ConservaRepubs has been immense. Buicks, Guns and Whacky politics abound.

Arizona law would criminalize being lewd or annoying on the Internet | The Raw Story

No BS! I looked this up after seeing it on the local FOX news. Governor Jan Brewer (R) is on record saying she supports it 100% but apparently her advisors are telling her that whole Constitution thing could be a problem. I don't know if that will stop her though. She is the only actual Government Death Panel to ever exist: She broke the state law and discontinued health benefits to people who would die without them, as well as the mentally challenged, veterans and of course, the poor. Fortunately for those who were about to die, MSNBC set up some kind of fund, broadcasted all about it and apparently were able to save those people from Governor Brewer's arbitrary death sentence.
There is a LOT going on here that really deserves national attention but doesn't get it. The city council has tried to get rid of this whackjob Arpaio a few times. He is currently suing two of them for defamation (they claim he says things which well, he has been caught saying on video), which is costing the locals millions. Arpaio is now spending tons of taxpayer money on the Birther thing.
Arizona doesn't have a crowded metropolitan city like New York, Chicago etc... (the closest they have is Phoenix, which has a lot of people but is spread out over a HUGE land area) but is among the top in gun crimes per capita (and guess what? Illegal aliens account for less than 5% of it). They have the worst schools in the country, other than The South and over 400 rapes and child molestations annually aren't even investigated every year.
But THIS is the kind of stuff is what IS important to Arizonans: Don't annoy people on the internet. The complete lack of common sense in favor of social issues that appeal to mindless drones is obvious. No wonder Sarah Palin moved here. I am absolutely certain that the old, white Tea Partiers here would vote her into any office she wants.
This is quite an interesting place to visit! The people really do have hearts of gold - as long as you're "one of them" (they have been fantastic to my mom). But their politics and priorities are about four steps beyond whack.

 

[The T]

Good. I live in FLORIDA. Let them come and arrest me.

THIS topic has already been covered days ago.

Sorry.

 

[uscitizen]

Sounds like a conservative paradise to me.

 

[sparky]

well Gawd help we should ever look out for each other

that would be sheer communisim.....

~S~

 

[The T]

well Gawd help we should ever look out for each other

that would be sheer communisim.....

~S~

Damned shame some are annoyed by speech...

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right Sheriff Joe, don't let `em push ya around - tell `em to stick it where the sun don't shine!...

U.S. sues Arpaio's office over treatment of Latinos
May. 10, 2012 The U.S. Justice Department's racial-profiling lawsuit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio will prolong a case that already has languished for years unless negotiators find common ground for a settlement.

The suit, filed Thursday, accuses deputies of discriminating against Latino residents and seeks injunctive relief from a federal judge. It marks just the second time since the federal police-reform act was passed in 1994 that the Justice Department has been forced to file a contested lawsuit against a law-enforcement agency, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez said. If experience is any barometer, finding common ground for a settlement could prove difficult. The only other such case the Justice Department has taken to court took three years and several million dollars to settle, and the parties in that case were less polarized than Arpaio and his federal nemesis.

Perez said Thursday that his agency was left with no choice but to file suit against the five-term sheriff, his office and the county after Arpaio's attorneys balked at a demand for a court-appointed monitor to ensure the Sheriff's Office complied with any settlement terms. The sheriff has repeatedly rejected the notion of a court-appointed monitor with sweeping powers, and his attorneys blamed the Justice Department for being intractable on the issue. Arpaio said he welcomed the court challenge. "We are not racist, we do not racial- profile. There's no systemic proof of that," Arpaio said Thursday. "Quite frankly, I'm happy (they sued)."

But Perez said he was saddened by the turn of events that led the federal government to file only its second lawsuit since reforms were enacted after the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles. "I come here today with a profound sense of disappointment ... because, based on our experience, I feel like we had a pretty good handle on some of the solutions that would work and would make (Arpaio) look good and would make the community better and would make the community safer," Perez said.

A three-year Justice Department investigation concluded in December that sheriff's deputies and detention officers discriminated against Latinos in patrol and jail operations. The investigation initially was stalled by the sheriff's refusal to turn over records, which delayed the probe for 18 months and forced the federal government to sue for the documents in September 2010. That suit was resolved in 2011. Arpaio has repeatedly charged that the investigation was politically motivated and that the suit is timed to coincide with President Barack Obama's re-election bid.

Read more: U.S. sues Arpaio's office over treatment of Latinos

See also:

'I Am Not Going to Surrender My Office to the Federal Government,' Sheriff Arpaio Says
May 10, 2012 — As defiant as ever, get-tough Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio faces a federal court showdown over charges that deputies on his trademark immigration patrols racially profiled Latinos in violation of civil rights law.

After months of negotiations failed to reach a settlement over the allegations, the U.S. Justice Department took the rare step Thursday of suing. "We have invariably been able to work collaboratively with law enforcement agencies to build better departments and safer communities," Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez said. Arpaio and his department "have been a glaring exception," said Perez, who heads the civil rights division.

The main issue that caused talks to break down last month was federal officials' insistence that Arpaio agree to a court-appointed monitor for the department. Arpaio objected, saying it would undermine his authority. "I am not going to surrender my office to the federal government," a visibly angry Arpaio said at an afternoon news conference. "I will fight this to the bitter end." The lawsuit means that a federal judge will decide the escalating, long-standing dispute.

The Justice Department, which had been investigating Arpaio on civil rights allegations for more than three years and faced a similar impasse earlier in the investigation, said it was left with no choice but to sue the sheriff to seek the court-appointed monitor it wants to oversee the law enforcement agency. The DOJ had filed another lawsuit against Arpaio that alleged his office refused to fully cooperate with a request for records and access to jails and employees. It was settled last summer after the office complied.

The latest lawsuit comes as part of the DOJ's effort to enforce a law passed after the verdict in the Rodney King police brutality case and the Los Angeles riots. It bans police from systematically violating constitutional rights. Normally, settlements are filed in court as part of lawsuits that aren't contested by the police agencies. Since the law's passage, federal officials said that only once before has the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against a police department with which they were unable to reach an agreement. In 1999, they filed a lawsuit against Columbus, Ohio, police, but the two sides eventually settled, Perez said.

MORE

 

[California Girl]

well Gawd help we should ever look out for each other

that would be sheer communisim.....

~S~

Just stop forcing me to 'look out for' you and we're good.

Twit.

 

[California Girl]

I see 'Independent Logic' is, yet again, demonstrating an absolute lack of both independence or logic.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I see 'Independent Logic' is, yet again, demonstrating an absolute lack of both independence or logic.

Seriously sweetheart, you need new material. I mean, your oh so clever little prattle was cute the first 100 times you followed me from thread to thread because of your little obssession with me, and okay, it's cute that you come into threads every day just to post about me!
But try to at least get beyond the 6thgrade nannie poopoo rants. Come up with something new! Fresh! Creative!
Of course, some day you might discuss something other than me but that would require thought on your part and I don't want you to over-extend yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

well Gawd help we should ever look out for each other

that would be sheer communisim.....

~S~

Just stop forcing me to 'look out for' you and we're good.

Twit.

Says little miss private jet! rich!

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right Sheriff Joe - stand yer ground...

Sheriff Joe Arpaio 'not going to bend' to Obama
6/25/12 - 'It’s going to be very interesting to see what the Homeland Security does now,' said Arpaio.

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Monday accused President Barack Obama of trying to make him the “poster boy” of his state’s controversial immigration law and maintained that he’s “not going to bend to the federal government” in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of the law. Asked by Fox News’ Neil Cavuto whether he considered Obama’s statement that “no American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like” was intended to be a “slap” at Arpaio, the sheriff responded, “Of course it is.” “I’m the poster boy. He mentioned me a few months ago at the White House; he didn’t like what I was doing with [S.B.] 1070,” he said. “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-a-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.”

The Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision ruled against three provisions of SB 1070 while upholding one — widely known as the “show me your papers” measure — that requires police officers to determine the immigration status of an individual who has been stopped for questioning when there’s reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The Justice Department announced in May that it is suing the Arpaio, who calls himself the “toughest sheriff in America.” On Fox, the Maricopa County sheriff also took a shot at the administration’s immigration policy. “If he has that much concern, then stop them from coming into the United States because it’s illegal to come into this country,” he said. “He ought to do something about that situation.”

Earlier in the day, the sheriff had said that the Supreme Court had protected “a good section” of the state’s immigration law by upholding the controversial “show me your papers” provision of the law. “I think this is a good section that’s been upheld,” Arpaio said Arizona’s local TV station KNXV. “I would have liked to see where we would have the authority to arrest illegal aliens just by being here illegally and book them into our jails, but that’s not going to happen. But I think this sends a message that we will be involved in enforcing the illegal alien laws and our police officers will be able to at least try to determine if they’re in this country illegally.”

Arpaio also pushed back on allegations that he is a proponent of racial profiling, maintaining that he’s simply interested in doing “the right thing.” Asked if he expects Immigration and Customs Enforcement to cooperate with the sheriff’s department, Arpaio said this remains to be seen. “It’s going to be very interesting to see what the Homeland Security does now, if they will continue to pick up the illegal aliens we come into contact with,” he said. “So we’ll see what happens.”

Joe Arpaio 'not going to bend' to Obama - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com

See also:

In Arizona law's wake, other states to forge ahead
25 June`12 WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court's split ruling Monday on Arizona's controversial immigration law did nothing to settle the debate — providing little clarity on how far states can go to police their borders and solidifying the topic as a key election-year issue.

The court, in Arizona v. United States, upheld a key provision that requires state and local police to check the immigration status of people they've stopped or detained if a "reasonable suspicion" exists that they're in the country illegally. Though this pillar of the law survived the federal government's challenge, the courts are likely to see it again once it is fully implemented. The justices, in a 5-3 vote, struck down three other provisions that created new state crimes targeting illegal immigrants, arguing that Arizona had usurped federal authority in the area of immigration enforcement.

The court battle pitted Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the immigration bill into law two years ago, against President Obama, whose Justice Department sued the state to block it. Both Brewer and Obama claimed victory, suggesting just how difficult it will be to reach a consensus on how local police can approach, question and arrest the country's 11 million illegal immigrants. "The Supreme Court has really sent us a mixed message," said Arizona state Sen. Steve Gallardo, a Democrat and opponent of the bill.

Brewer said the "heart of the bill" was upheld, and state legislators around the country sounded emboldened, arguing that the ruling will not only help similar laws survive constitutional challenges but will lead to more laws when state legislatures reconvene in January. Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group, said the court upheld the "heart of the problem." But activists held out hope that because the majority of the law was gutted, similar laws across the country — or those under consideration — will suffer a similar fate.

As other states targeting illegal immigration sort out the legal fallout from the ruling, the decision swiftly moved into the political realm as Obama and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney weighed in. The president said he remained "concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision" and that it could open the door for racial profiling. In fact, Obama's Department of Justice announced late Monday that it had set up a telephone hotline and e-mail address to field reports of civil right complaints when the law goes into effect, which will happen after a federal injunction is lifted. Romney said the ruling underscores how Obama has failed to develop a national immigration strategy that does not force states to fend for themselves: "This represents yet another broken promise by the president."

MORE