Romney Refuses to Respond To Merits of Supreme Court Decision | Arizona Law

[Procrustes Stretched]

So it's to much to ask THE LAWLESS ONE to enforce the laws we already have?

Scalia's style of commenting is often unprecedented. He has no respect for the Court and precedent and tradition and history. He has turned out to be a vile partisan hack in a robe

To see those words coming from a leftwing ideologue like you is truly mind-boggling.

Oh, the IRONY!!!

Left wing ideologue?

Dante is know to rip new holes in the butts of progressive leftists.

Dante is a moderate liberal in practice and a radical at heart. Pragmatism and rationality rule.

now buzz off loser

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He does bring to a close the notion that justice is blind and the scales are balanced.

I don't understand your thinking We have laws on the books why is The Lawless One fighting not too enforce them?

you'd probably need to read up on US History and Government to understand the complexities of Constitutional Powers and struggles between branches of government.

sorry, no time to teach today

Asking The Lawless One to enforce the laws we already have is hard for him to do, shouldn't we get someone who will?
If I were you I wouldn't apply for a positions as an adviser or consultant, you wouldn't last.
By the way take your own advice.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Scalia's style of commenting is often unprecedented. He has no respect for the Court and precedent and tradition and history. He has turned out to be a vile partisan hack in a robe

To see those words coming from a leftwing ideologue like you is truly mind-boggling.

Oh, the IRONY!!!

Left wing ideologue?

Dante is know to rip new holes in the butts of progressive leftists.

Dante is a moderate liberal in practice and a radical at heart. Pragmatism and rationality rule.

now buzz off loser

What the fuck is a "moderate liberal"? Is that like being a "social alcoholic"?

But you did get the radical part right, kudos for that.

 

[Contumacious]

opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

.

 

[Vel]

Romney Refuses to Respond To Merits of Supreme Court Decision | Arizona Law

The Conservative standard bearer is a disgrace to principle. Romney refused to take this opportunity to respond to the merits of teh Supreme Court decision on Arizona's immigration law case.

All Mitty Von Flipflop has done is criticize the President and throw raw meat to teh conservative base which is frothing at the mouth for blood.



What a loser. Romney is nothing but a vapid political opportunist who will do or say anything in order to become The First Mormon President

What he said is spot on.

What is it about what he said that is troubling you?

What is it you people fail to comprehend?

Romney Refuses to Respond To Merits of Supreme Court Decision | Arizona Law

Romney responded with lame political statements and ran away as fast as he could from being asked to act and speak like a leader.

Leaders lead, dipshits like Romney take their fingers out of their asses in order to determine which way the political winds are blowing.

The merits of the case were not addressed in Romney's statement.

It seems that it's you that fails to understand what Romney said. The broad sweeping premise of the case was does a state have the right enforce the sovereignty of it's borders. The ruling declared that they don't, Romney stated clearly that he believes they do. I realize that his statement was quite concise compared to the verbal vomiting that we usually get from Obama but it really isn't that hard to understand.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To see those words coming from a leftwing ideologue like you is truly mind-boggling.

Oh, the IRONY!!!

Left wing ideologue?

Dante is know to rip new holes in the butts of progressive leftists.

Dante is a moderate liberal in practice and a radical at heart. Pragmatism and rationality rule.

now buzz off loser

What the fuck is a "moderate liberal"? Is that like being a "social alcoholic"?

But you did get the radical part right, kudos for that.

You fool. Most people do not live on the extreme ends of a political spectrum.

Here in cyber-doosh-space that may be common, but in the real wold people like you and your main opponents are anomalies.

Dante is a liberal in philosophy, and moderate in many views because pragmatism demands taking reality into what will work on a practical level.

you really need to get away from the Groupthink

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To see those words coming from a leftwing ideologue like you is truly mind-boggling.

Oh, the IRONY!!!

Left wing ideologue?

Dante is know to rip new holes in the butts of progressive leftists.

Dante is a moderate liberal in practice and a radical at heart. Pragmatism and rationality rule.

now buzz off loser

What the fuck is a "moderate liberal"? Is that like being a "social alcoholic"?

But you did get the radical part right, kudos for that.

Also talking about ones self in third person is a sign of a mental disorder.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you guys seem to think he should make a comment on the decision when it was just released and his busy schedule has likely not given him a chance to actually read the decision yet? If I were Romney, i wouldnt be commenting on it either. I like reading decisions before I make a comment on them.

I havent had a chance to look it over, but if my guess is correct, they likely were correct in the decision as the Constitution does give issues of immigration to the Federal Government. Of course, since they upheld the important area where they are allowed to ask people their immigration status on stops, I think the real meat of the legislation hasnt been overturned.

My suggestion is that AZ and other states sue the Federal Government to compell them to begin enforcing the law.

 

[The T]

Left wing ideologue?

Dante is know to rip new holes in the butts of progressive leftists.

Dante is a moderate liberal in practice and a radical at heart. Pragmatism and rationality rule.

now buzz off loser

What the fuck is a "moderate liberal"? Is that like being a "social alcoholic"?

But you did get the radical part right, kudos for that.

Also talking about ones self in third person is a sign of a mental disorder.

Yeah there are others on these boards that tend to do the Third Person incarnations...FUN to watch.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What he said is spot on.

What is it about what he said that is troubling you?

What is it you people fail to comprehend?

Romney Refuses to Respond To Merits of Supreme Court Decision | Arizona Law

Romney responded with lame political statements and ran away as fast as he could from being asked to act and speak like a leader.

Leaders lead, dipshits like Romney take their fingers out of their asses in order to determine which way the political winds are blowing.

The merits of the case were not addressed in Romney's statement.

It seems that it's you that fails to understand what Romney said. The broad sweeping premise of the case was does a state have the right enforce the sovereignty of it's borders. The ruling declared that they don't, Romney stated clearly that he believes they do. I realize that his statement was quite concise compared to the verbal vomiting that we usually get from Obama but it really isn't that hard to understand.

Merits is a legal concept referring to the inherent rights and wrongs of a legal case, absent of any emotional or technical biases. The evidence is solely applied to cases decided on the merits, and any procedural matters are discounted.


Politicians respond to Supreme Court rulings – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

"Today's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this President. I believe that each state has the duty–and the right–to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But 4 years later, we are still waiting."​

Where in the above statement does Romney address the merits of the case?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Romney's last known position on the Arizona law, now declared unconstitutional for the most part,

was that it should be the model for the nation.

Someone should explain to him that we already have a model for the nation...

...it's called the Constitution.

 

[The T]

So you guys seem to think he should make a comment on the decision when it was just released and his busy schedule has likely not given him a chance to actually read the decision yet? If I were Romney, i wouldnt be commenting on it either. I like reading decisions before I make a comment on them.

I havent had a chance to look it over, but if my guess is correct, they likely were correct in the decision as the Constitution does give issues of immigration to the Federal Government. Of course, since they upheld the important area where they are allowed to ask people their immigration status on stops, I think the real meat of the legislation hasnt been overturned.

My suggestion is that AZ and other states sue the Federal Government to compell them to begin enforcing the law.

The media and the left are trying to suck Romney into it...as a distraction.

I applaud it...Romney should remain focused...and in the meantime? You KNOW the question will come up in any debate that the ONE agrees to...

Romney is best to defer until the debates.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Left wing ideologue?

Dante is know to rip new holes in the butts of progressive leftists.

Dante is a moderate liberal in practice and a radical at heart. Pragmatism and rationality rule.

now buzz off loser

What the fuck is a "moderate liberal"? Is that like being a "social alcoholic"?

But you did get the radical part right, kudos for that.

Also talking about ones self in third person is a sign of a mental disorder.

more proof you just don't get IT

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So you guys seem to think he should make a comment on the decision when it was just released and his busy schedule has likely not given him a chance to actually read the decision yet? If I were Romney, i wouldnt be commenting on it either. I like reading decisions before I make a comment on them.

I havent had a chance to look it over, but if my guess is correct, they likely were correct in the decision as the Constitution does give issues of immigration to the Federal Government. Of course, since they upheld the important area where they are allowed to ask people their immigration status on stops, I think the real meat of the legislation hasnt been overturned.

My suggestion is that AZ and other states sue the Federal Government to compell them to begin enforcing the law.

The merits of the case should be known already. Especially for a man fighting to replace Barack Obama, President of the United States of America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_(law) referring to the inherent rights and wrongs of a legal case, absent of any emotional or technical biases. The evidence is solely applied to cases decided on the merits, and any procedural matters are discounted.

What you call the 'important' part of the law was ruled Constitutional with a caveat .. a huge caveat. Your comments suggest your side is clueless to what the decision spells out

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Romney's last known position on the Arizona law, now declared unconstitutional for the most part,

was that it should be the model for the nation.

Someone should explain to him that we already have a model for the nation...

...it's called the Constitution.

hear, hear...

 

[The T]

So you guys seem to think he should make a comment on the decision when it was just released and his busy schedule has likely not given him a chance to actually read the decision yet? If I were Romney, i wouldnt be commenting on it either. I like reading decisions before I make a comment on them.

I havent had a chance to look it over, but if my guess is correct, they likely were correct in the decision as the Constitution does give issues of immigration to the Federal Government. Of course, since they upheld the important area where they are allowed to ask people their immigration status on stops, I think the real meat of the legislation hasnt been overturned.

My suggestion is that AZ and other states sue the Federal Government to compell them to begin enforcing the law.

The merits of the case should be known already. Especially for a man fighting to replace Barack Obama, President of the United States of America.

referring to the inherent rights and wrongs of a legal case, absent of any emotional or technical biases. The evidence is solely applied to cases decided on the merits, and any procedural matters are discounted.

What you call the 'important' part of the law was ruled Constitutional with a caveat .. a huge caveat. Your comments suggest your side is clueless to what the decision spells out

What do you mean SHOULD BE KNOWN asswipe? They ARE know, Dantoid.

If Romney defers? HIS choice and I applaud it.

Face it? Obama Lost BIG today.

 

[Vel]

What is it you people fail to comprehend?

Romney Refuses to Respond To Merits of Supreme Court Decision | Arizona Law

Romney responded with lame political statements and ran away as fast as he could from being asked to act and speak like a leader.

Leaders lead, dipshits like Romney take their fingers out of their asses in order to determine which way the political winds are blowing.

The merits of the case were not addressed in Romney's statement.

It seems that it's you that fails to understand what Romney said. The broad sweeping premise of the case was does a state have the right enforce the sovereignty of it's borders. The ruling declared that they don't, Romney stated clearly that he believes they do. I realize that his statement was quite concise compared to the verbal vomiting that we usually get from Obama but it really isn't that hard to understand.

Merits is a legal concept referring to the inherent rights and wrongs of a legal case, absent of any emotional or technical biases. The evidence is solely applied to cases decided on the merits, and any procedural matters are discounted.


Politicians respond to Supreme Court rulings – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

"Today's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this President. I believe that each state has the duty–and the right–to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But 4 years later, we are still waiting."​

Where in the above statement does Romney address the merits of the case?

Dante.. the inherent right of the case was does the state have the right to enforce the sovereignty of their own borders. The Supremes said no. Romney says he believes they do. Are you really having that much trouble understanding this? Are broad concepts too big for you? You know, little people often have problems seeing the big picture and allow themselves to be bogged down in the minutia.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Romney's last known position on the Arizona law, now declared unconstitutional for the most part

Except for the part where they can check your immigration status and turn you over to ICE.

Too bad ICE and HSA have just stated they well selectively enforce federal immigration law to get back at AZ.

That should play well with the regular law abiding citizen.

 

[jillian]

Looks like the Koch's and Rove still haven't told Willard how he's suppose to feel on the issue

i suspect it's more that he's afraid to say what he thinks... one way would tick off the moderates; the other would have the base shrieking that he's a RINO.

it's a lose-lose situation for him.

 

[Vel]

Romney's last known position on the Arizona law, now declared unconstitutional for the most part,

was that it should be the model for the nation.

Someone should explain to him that we already have a model for the nation...

...it's called the Constitution.

Ummm.. Just to note.. The Arizona law MIRRORED federal law. The only difference was that Arizona intended enforcing the law, which means it should be the model for the nation.