Activist Judge Blocks Arizona SB1070

[BigPapaVol]

can't help you. Your objectivity must keep you from reading clearly slanted commentary.

You need to learn to write more clearly. Subj + Verb + obj. "Jane likes cake." Very clear.


She cited legal precedent to show reasonable cause that the state law pre empts federal law.

no she did not. She simply applied the words and tossed out the precedent, but in no way did she marry the two.

Ok, then. She provides the Hines case and the Tucson case, but that's not precedent?

Jesus. That's like me handing you a steak and you telling me that is not food.

Don't you want law based on precedent?

Don't care how we get it, just that we do and it be the right thing to do.

And how is she quoting herself? I don't follow?

you're doing the quoting. Your quoting the woman who gave the opinion to help justify said woman's opinion. Hence the above analogy that your objectivity made incomprehensible to you.


That's called providing textual evidence.

You provide the law: "Insert law." I provide her response to the law: "insert response."

your inability to deal with compound sentences is not my problem.

as to precedence, she could have provided Roe v. Wade and it would have been as applicable here. Just because she called it precedence and went through the mental gymnastics to try and make it fit doesn't mean that the logic that got there is sensible at all.

I don't care the textual evidence argument. It fits under my sentence above.

 

[volholio]

i hate to break it to you, but that was absolutely proper english. Or did your study of the english language stop in 6th grade?

I teach writing composition for a living. Hence my beautifully chiseled sentence structure.

:hi:

 

[volholio]

So you are saying the states cannot do what the feds do? The states cannot assist in enforcing federal statutes? The states must not touch anything federal? Well that just erases quite a bit of 'precedent' as you say and actually opens up a huge vacuum on many fronts.

As far as it goes in AZ? Yep. Empty apartments, quiet stores, etc. Even the leftist media is verifying a return back across the border or to friendlier states.

I'm not saying anything. I'm saying the Judge cites legal precedence that say that.

 

[BigPapaVol]

So you are saying the states cannot do what the feds do? The states cannot assist in enforcing federal statutes? The states must not touch anything federal? Well that just erases quite a bit of 'precedent' as you say and actually opens up a huge vacuum on many fronts.

and this is why the legal precedence of states superseding federal law argument is absolute garbage. This state is simply mirroring the federal law to allow its own officers to sidestep the federal mandate to ignore this particular law.

 

[utvolpj]

Sure, if we pass a law in Alabama that says we will find all the black people and then hang them, they would leave too.

If we pass a law that says we shall kill all the Jews in the state of Tennessee, then they would leave.

But you still have provided no evidence that illegal immigrants are leaving.

and why do they bother you so much.

Do you run into them much?

I sure ran into a bunch when I worked in the construction industry in AZ for 7 years. How about you?

I won't respond to the rest of your post since it has absolutely nothing to do with anything relevant

You still haven't answered my original questions but that's ok

 

[Tenacious D]

That's fine. If the Roberts court can find legal precedent that supercedes the Hines case and the Tucson case, then it can stand, but there's a lot of precedent there.

The burden will be high.

Well, think of the precedent they'll set if they strike it down. You do know that the AZ Law is merely requiring local law enforcement to enforce federal law, right?

You are aware of the hundreds - if not thousands - of state laws that do the exact same thing, right? Only in this case, its something that the Feds don't want to enforce, and so they're pissed that the states are forcing the issue upon them. Good luck getting them to effectuate a ruling that says, "uphold some but not all....even though they are both laws".

There is some observance of the hierarchical order of precedents, no? Which do you think they'd prefer to supercede?

I say that if you don't like the enforcement of the federal law, then you should leave the good people of Arizona alone - and put your efforts toward the rightful source of your angst - and have the law repealed. So long as they're on the books, you will never (read: NEVER) get the USSC to issue a ruling that they should be left unenforced.

Cite all of the case law you want, but that's what it comes down to - do we want local law enforcement to uphold and adhere to federal law, or not.

 

[CSpindizzy]

This clown is using examples of random killing and torture of people based on no crime being committed as his argument against sending someone back across a border who came illegally. Wow - a free ride across a border for breaking a law is compared to vigilante mob torture and killing...

 

[droski]

I teach writing composition for a living. Hence my beautifully chiseled sentence structure.

:hi:

in other words you are a grade school english teacher. explains your belief in this garbage. perhaps i might ask you what the phrase "conversational english" means? or do you think mesageboards are akin to 500 word essays on jane austin novels?

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm not saying anything. I'm saying the Judge cites legal precedence that say that.

but that doesn't keep her strained logic from being political, period. She could have cited any case, made up a lame ass linkage (as she did here) and said precedent exists under which she could apply her political views.

You kept citing her precedent here to argue that she was simply following legal procedure, which is fine, so long as one actually ignores the little meaning thingies of the words provided.

 

[volholio]

you were talking about old "white" people moving to arizona. i guess no other race moves out there. just rich white old people

And illegal immigrants, I guess.

:hi:

 

[hndog609]

Sure, if we pass a law in Alabama that says we will find all the black people and then hang them, they would leave too.

If we pass a law that says we shall kill all the Jews in the state of Tennessee, then they would leave.

But you still have provided no evidence that illegal immigrants are leaving.

and why do they bother you so much.

Do you run into them much?

Whatever arguments you do or do not make the boldened above is patently absurd. I suspect you know this. And no, it does not address an absurdity from the other point of view. We are discussing proof of citizenship here...hanging and killing metaphors need not apply.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I teach writing composition for a living. Hence my beautifully chiseled sentence structure.

:hi:

Really. That's where you came up with the word "gander" for describing someone's ire?

 

[Vol423]

1) Huh? Who says that?

National polls show that the entire nation supports this bill. Polls show that people in Arizona are even MORE in favor of the bill.

#2 shows what a fool you are.

 

[droski]

for a little levity: YouTube - Adam Carolla weighs in on Arizona's Immigration Bill SB1070 Part 1

 

[SWIL]

This is similar to the type of laws that existed in Nazi Germany. The Gestapo (or any German policeman for that matter) had the right to demand papers from anyone whom they suspected of being Jewish.

 

[CSpindizzy]

If this is her standard on a temporary injunction, she better issue injunctions on quite a few more laws across the books.

And one minute you use 'status quo' to defend your argument and the next you say if rounding up Jews was status quo, it would not matter. Which is it? Does status quo matter or not?

 

[droski]

This is similar to the type of laws that existed in Nazi Germany. The Gestapo (or any German policeman for that matter) had the right to demand papers from anyone whom they suspected of being Jewish.

I see so any law that indirectly coincides with a nazi german ones must mean we are on our way to gassing 1,000,000 mexicans. and once again the policemen don't have the right ot ask anyone for their "papers."

 

[volholio]

but that doesn't keep her strained logic from being political, period. She could have cited any case, made up a lame ass linkage (as she did here) and said precedent exists under which she could apply her political views.

You kept citing her precedent here to argue that she was simply following legal procedure, which is fine, so long as one actually ignores the little meaning thingies of the words provided.

So, John Roberts / BPV, use her textual evidence to show me how she twists logic.

She may very well, but the burden of proof is now upon you.

Ready, set, go.

 

[CSpindizzy]

This is similar to the type of laws that existed in Nazi Germany. The Gestapo (or any German policeman for that matter) had the right to demand papers from anyone whom they suspected of being Jewish.

Seriously? Similar as in the Jews had to be pulled over first? And had to have just cause to detain and question someone first? Or that illegals had nice yellow stars on their shirts already identifying them? And never had an ACLU to assist them? Or a court to protect them and hear their grievances?

 

[BigPapaVol]

This is similar to the type of laws that existed in Nazi Germany. The Gestapo (or any German policeman for that matter) had the right to demand papers from anyone whom they suspected of being Jewish.

this law specifically avoids that problem by actually requiring an unrelated incident be the cause for even asking for proof.

 

[droski]

So, John Roberts / BPV, use her textual evidence to show me how she twists logic.

She may very well, but the burden of proof is now upon you.

Ready, set, go.

so basically you wont answer any of our questions as to her logic? spoken like a true academic. only breaking out some meaningless 10,000 word study makes an argument valid. god forbid we have ideas and thoughts of our own.

 

[utvolpj]

I'm really trying to find a way where the Nazi's offered the Jews a way to live in Germany and prosper but they just didn't want to deal with it. My google skills must not be very good

 

[volholio]

If this is her standard on a temporary injunction, she better issue injunctions on quite a few more laws across the books.

And one minute you use 'status quo' to defend your argument and the next you say if rounding up Jews was status quo, it would not matter. Which is it? Does status quo matter or not?

I'm confused. Who mentioned rounding up Jewish people as "status quo"?

What I said was the following:

If Tennessee passed a law that stated that we must round up all the Jewish people, then that too would be judged unconstitutional.

I used that analogy to discount someone's argument that "the overwhelming majority" of people voted for or support this law because the popular support for it is irrelevant to its constitutionality.

Just like if the people of Tennessee voted for a law that rounded up all the Jewish people . . .

 

[droski]

I'm really trying to find a way where the Nazi's offered the Jews a way to live in Germany and prosper but they just didn't want to deal with it. My google skills must not be very good

wait you mean the jews didn't willingly travel to germany during the nazi regime?

 

[BigPapaVol]

So, John Roberts / BPV, use her textual evidence to show me how she twists logic.

She may very well, but the burden of proof is now upon you.

Ready, set, go.

why is it on me? I've said it about 4 times. She has fabricated a burden that is being placed on people. She is implying that the superseding of federal law is happening in that officers are enforcing the federal laws against the wishes of federal law enforcement. Both are absolute garbage. There is no precedent for any state to HAVE TO ignore federal law and there is no incremental burden being placed on any citizen. We all have said burden today, period.