Activist Judge Blocks Arizona SB1070

#30
#30
Typical decision from CA9 sitting in San Francisco. CA9 has always been left of center. No surprise.
 
#37
#37
volholio said:
The judge is doing what the Constitution is telling him/her to do.

What's so activist about that?

If the Congress passes a law that says that we shall have no more presidents, it's up to the Judge to strike that law down.

You'd call her activist?

Let's hear it.
Click to expand...

Are you still the same doctrinaire marxist educator you were when you returned from the Czech Republic?

Funny how Obots are all for the constitution if they can twist it's meaning to serve their statist cause but then say it is a dated document the needs to evolve when they can't.
 
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
There was a time that the Supreme Court actually avoided sensationalized cases so as to keep themselves from being a part of pop culture. Not this Court.
Click to expand...

Your foolishness knows no bounds, does it?

Would you consider Roe v. Wade, "sensationalized"?

How about Brown v. Board of Education?

What was the last case that the USSC heard that did not have some "sensationalized" element to it? That these are the cases which do and should go to them is axiomatic.

I LOVE this AZ law if for no other reason than it is the first time you're seeing liberals being forced(kicking, screaming, sucking thumbs, stamping feet, etc.) into the courthouse on an issue of importance - and that they know they're going to get it handed to them.

And make no mistake, LawVol (and all other like-minded individuals) - John Roberts is absolutely going to make this suit his lady-friend, brotha, book it.

Please include your supportive reasoning as to the uconstitutionality of this law, or the reason(s) why you believe thre to be even a remote chance of the USSC failing to uphold this law.....somewhere in the course of your response to disagree with this post.

Don't just make some red-herring argument, let's hear some reasons, counselor.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
Also, in before the "Sotamayor must recuse herself" because she's Hispanic idiotic posts.
Click to expand...

She must recuse herself because of some of her dumbass commentary regarding preferences. It has nothing to do with her heritage.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#41
#41
it's not suprising that a femail judge would block this. it will go to the supreme court. i'm sure the 'wise latina' will make a non biased ruling. this will be passed, it will just take a longer time.
 
#44
#44
The 'wise Latina' will make a quite biased ruling. She was placed there specifically for her bias. As were all other judges. Her bias happens to lean favorable to the DoJ's position that law as it stands need not apply and that the executive branch can pick and choose laws it wishes to enforce despite an oath to uphold the law regardless of their personal feelings on it.

This whole issue would not have even arisen had the DoJ simply did its job.
 
#45
#45
kptvol said:
Please explain how this law is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I don't give a rat's ass about this particular law one way or the other.

My point is simple: Are the courts an equal branch in the US Constitution or aren't they?

If they are, then what is their role?

I argue that it is supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of the laws passed by the legislative branch and signed by the Executive branch.

If the Courts--up to the Supreme Court--rule that a particular law--such as one that eliminates the Executive Branch--violates the USC, then it is its, the Courts, moral responsibility to strike that law (or sections of it down). That doesn't make the Court "Activist."

Anytime it overturns a law on Constitutional law doesn't make it "activist."

My argument if this law is Constitutional or not. The Courts will decide that. My problem is will the "activist" label in the OP.

Nothing more or nothing less.

Now, if you all want to be all angry with the Mexicans, then so be it. Teach your children to be *******s and racist for all I care. Indeed, move your ass to Arizona with all other old as hell white people who can only breathe arid air. All of that is your prerogative and between you and your own heart.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
 
#46
#46
joevol320 said:
it's not suprising that a femail judge would block this. it will go to the supreme court. i'm sure the 'wise latina' will make a non biased ruling. this will be passed, it will just take a longer time.
Click to expand...

You've also got to be a misogynist ass, too?

Nice work
:clap::hi:
 
#47
#47
volholio said:
I don't give a rat's ass about this particular law one way or the other.

My point is simple: Are the courts an equal branch in the US Constitution or aren't they?

If they are, then what is their role?

I argue that it is supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of the laws passed by the legislative branch and signed by the Executive branch.

If the Courts--up to the Supreme Court--rule that a particular law--such as one that eliminates the Executive Branch--violates the USC, then it is its, the Courts, moral responsibility to strike that law (or sections of it down). That doesn't make the Court "Activist."

Anytime it overturns a law on Constitutional law doesn't make it "activist."

My argument if this law is Constitutional or not. The Courts will decide that. My problem is will the "activist" label in the OP.

Nothing more or nothing less.

Now, if you all want to be all angry with the Mexicans, then so be it. Teach your children to be *******s and racist for all I care. Indeed, move your ass to Arizona with all other old as hell white people who can only breathe arid air. All of that is your prerogative and between you and your own heart.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
Click to expand...

Clearly your point was only about legal procedure, as it's abundantly apparent that have no dog in this fight. Your overwhelming objectivity probably even puts a levelheaded guy like Obama to shame.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#48
#48
volholio said:
I don't give a rat's ass about this particular law one way or the other.

My point is simple: Are the courts an equal branch in the US Constitution or aren't they?

If they are, then what is their role?

I argue that it is supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of the laws passed by the legislative branch and signed by the Executive branch.

If the Courts--up to the Supreme Court--rule that a particular law--such as one that eliminates the Executive Branch--violates the USC, then it is its, the Courts, moral responsibility to strike that law (or sections of it down). That doesn't make the Court "Activist."

Anytime it overturns a law on Constitutional law doesn't make it "activist."

My argument if this law is Constitutional or not. The Courts will decide that. My problem is will the "activist" label in the OP.

Nothing more or nothing less.

Now, if you all want to be all angry with the Mexicans, then so be it. Teach your children to be *******s and racist for all I care. Indeed, move your ass to Arizona with all other old as hell white people who can only breathe arid air. All of that is your prerogative and between you and your own heart.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
Click to expand...


speaking of racist
 
#49
#49
volholio said:
You've also got to be a misogynist ass, too?

Nice work
:clap::hi:
Click to expand...
You act as if her commentary isn't bigoted as all hell.

At least you've further proven your objectivity here. Look at you, all concerned with process and such. How big of you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top