Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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
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
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.
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 dutyand the rightto 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.
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
So you think that Romney should suspend campaigning and start reading long supreme court decisions they are initially released? And that if he doesnt have it read within hours and make a comment to your satisfaction then you think he should be condemned?
Tell me, has Obama read and responded?
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.
Just heard...Napolitano just stated that they aren't going to cooperate with Arizona any longer...
LINK to come...
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 dutyand the rightto 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.
So you cannot point out where in Romney's statement he actually addresses teh merits of the case?
goodbye
dD
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.
So you cannot point out where in Romney's statement he actually addresses teh merits of the case?
goodbye
dD
Romney addressed the overall merit of the case. It's not his fault ( or mine ) that you're not able to comprehend that. When you put all those trees together it's called a ( I'll type it slow for you ) F O R E S T.
Arizona told the Court they were assisting the Federal government. Arizona cannot demand the Federal government assist them on this issue
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 dutyand the rightto 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?
Arizona told the Court they were assisting the Federal government. Arizona cannot demand the Federal government assist them on this issue
Cue SUPERPAC ad in 1, 2, 3
Pans to AZ LE with illegals in cuffs.
Since June 25,2012 Arizona Law Enforcement agencies have requested Federal law enforcement assitance in determining immigration status and deportation of "X" amount of illegals caught committing crimes.
Barack Obama's Custom and Immigration Enforcement and Homeland Security ignored and refused those calls for assistance and demended those illegal be set free on our streets to commit other crimes.
Oh well. I'm OK with it. He is running for Executive Office, not Supreme Court Justice.What he said is spot on.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 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.
So you cannot point out where in Romney's statement he actually addresses teh merits of the case?
goodbye
dD
Romney addressed the overall merit of the case. It's not his fault ( or mine ) that you're not able to comprehend that. When you put all those trees together it's called a ( I'll type it slow for you ) F O R E S T.
Repeating yourself will not turn imaginings into true fact. Romney failed to address teh merits of the case. He mouthed more vapid political bullshit.
You are unclear on the concept of 'merits' in legal speak. It's okay. But I will not bother with you anymore. You are just taking up bandwidth
So, the OP and others are upset because Romney refused to comment on the merits of a case in the SCOTUS.
We have three branches folks. At least Romney knows that and lets them do their job, and I haven't seen him try to lie about their power, either.
So, the OP and others are upset because Romney refused to comment on the merits of a case in the SCOTUS.
We have three branches folks. At least Romney knows that and lets them do their job, and I haven't seen him try to lie about their power, either.
