Balloon guy 158 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Haha...the SC is just bitch slapping the Obama administration over this. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Perhaps not so doomed to fail.Yeah, I wrote that before I learned precedent means absolutely nothing to the conservative members of the current court. Glad I don't live in Arizona. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Yeah, I wrote that before I learned precedent means absolutely nothing to the conservative members of the current court. Glad I don't live in Arizona. “I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.I guess the rule of law means nothing to the liberal members of the current court. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,747 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I guess the rule of law means nothing to the liberal members of the current court.But really it's just the 10th amendment they hate so badly, BG. Let's not throw the entire "rule of law" out there. Let's just delete #10. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 This administration reminds me of a bunch of teenage kids running wild, they have no thought or concern for what they are doing it just feels good…then parents come home and bitch slap them all back into reality, cut off the money and ground them for months. Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 QUOTE (Pot Odds RAC @ Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 3:57 PM)Perhaps not so doomed to fail.Yeah, I wrote that before I learned precedent means absolutely nothing to the conservative members of the current court. Glad I don't live in Arizona.I never understand flaming lib jews.Seriously could you explain how a jew can side with a party that is openly hostile to IsraelNevermind I just answered my own question. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 The "Show us your papers" part of this law was upheld by the SCOTUS Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 The "Show us your papers" part of this law was upheld by the SCOTUSdepending on how they enforce it. I have faith that Sheriff Joe will screw that up too.But, I'm surprised Arizona was able to win on anything. Constitutional law is just changing all over the place this last couple years. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 healthcare is next.... Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,311 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Here's What The Supreme Court's Arizona Immigration Ruling REALLY MeansRead more: http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-arizona-immigration-decision-2012-6#ixzz1yperjJ1jthe Supreme Court sided mostly with the federal government. The Obama administration didn't get all of its wishes, but three of the four key provisions were ruled unconstitutional. Here's what the Supreme Court struck down, ruling that these provisions were preempted by federal immigration law: Making it a state crime for illegal immigrants to not carry and possess their federal registration cards. Making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or apply for work, or solicit work in a public place. Allowing state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant with probable cause when they committed "any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States." But the law's most controversial provision — the "papers please" provision that requires law enforcement officials to check the legal status of detained and arrested people with reasonable suspicion — was left standing, a ruling that favors Arizona.But the Supreme Court didn't exactly "uphold" the provision — it simply said there is not enough information to determine whether it conflicts with federal law.Here's the key part of the ruling:The Federal Government has brought suit against a sovereign State to challenge the provision even before the law has gone into effect. There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.Translation: We need to see how the law is practiced and enforced before we decide whether this state law conflicts with federal immigration law. But the court did leave their opinion open, saying it "does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-arizona-immigration-decision-2012-6#ixzz1ypf4ltvl Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 I think this decision has left things more confused than before. That's what happens when you start with a bad law and have a Supreme Court that doesn't have any fundamental belief system -- you just get random sort of nonsense.In the end, vigilantes like Sheriff Joe are not going to solve the immigration problem, and the current solution of having an economy that really really sucks is not permanent. It will eventually have to be dealt with in a realistic and moral fashion or this problem will continue forever. Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 QUOTE (Balloon guy @ Thursday, September 2nd, 2010, 12:51 PM)Well, more people die each year on our border than in all the years of the Berlin Wall, and once upon a time people thought the wall was inhumane..... Irony on parade here.Less died on the berlin wall, cause it was well guarded. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Federal Judge just upheld "Show Us Your Papers" in Az. Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Federal Judge just upheld "Show Us Your Papers" in Az. The idea that someone should have some sort of ID is outrageous and unamerican. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 The idea that someone should have some sort of ID is outrageous and unamerican. Like in order to cash a check, fly on a plane, rent a car, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, drive a car, attend a school, rent an apartment,etc. Link to post Share on other sites
JubilantLankyLad 1,957 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Like in order to cash a check, fly on a plane, rent a car, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, drive a car, attend a school, rent an apartment, be, etc. FYP Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 If you don't have ID or money in your pocket you can get arrested for vagrancy in most places in this country. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 If you don't have ID or money in your pocket you can get arrested for vagrancy in most places in this country. I think the people who are against the "papers please" law would be against that law as well. But thank you for pointing out another bad law (if it exists, which I actually doubt). Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I think the people who are against the "papers please" law would be against that law as well. But thank you for pointing out another bad law (if it exists, which I actually doubt). Seriously, I dont get why being able to id yourself to law enforcement is bad law. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I think the people who are against the "papers please" law would be against that law as well. But thank you for pointing out another bad law (if it exists, which I actually doubt). Vagrancy laws? Did you not see Rambo? That's what they arrested him for before they hosed him down. Man LLY...Rambo.....its like required before you get your man card. You DO want your man card don't you? Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Vagrancy laws? Did you not see Rambo? That's what they arrested him for before they hosed him down. Man LLY...Rambo.....its like required before you get your man card. You DO want your man card don't you? But you did see what rambo did to the town tho. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Seriously, I dont get why being able to id yourself to law enforcement is bad law. Because it removes a citizen's right: the right to not carry a wallet. I thought conservatives were against removing rights for little gain. If everyone needs to carry an id, and I go out for a walk and don't bring my wallet, should I be liable for arrest? Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Because it removes a citizen's right: the right to not carry a wallet. I thought conservatives were against removing rights for little gain. If everyone needs to carry an id, and I go out for a walk and don't bring my wallet, should I be liable for arrest? oK then if having ID is bad law, then I should be able to buy guns without having to prove who I am. Link to post Share on other sites
Essay21 2,385 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 walking around does not equal purchasing a gun. i feel like that shouldn't have to be said. Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 walking around does not equal purchasing a gun. i feel like that shouldn't have to be said. dOESNT equal voting either, but it seems to be ok to vote without ID Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now