Activist Judge Blocks Arizona SB1070

#151
#151
volholio said:
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 . . .
Click to expand...

so your argument is that rounding up jews is clearly as unconstitutional as asking people for a drivers license when they get pulled over? no gray area for you huh?
 
#152
#152
droski said:
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.
Click to expand...

Huh? We aren't dealing with our own words. We are dealing with the law's words, and we are dealing with the courts language which stays that law.

I mean it is our language. It's how we communicate. It's how we become strict constructionists, right?

The law means what it says and all of that, right?

Well, we have to stick to the words.

So, of course I quoted the Court's response. What am I supposed to quote?

I know Americans are ADD/HD, but you all can read closely, right?

I'm assuming you all can read a couple of paragraphs strung together, right?

Am I wrong to assume such skills?
 
#153
#153
SWIL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, look! Another person with ZERO knowledge of the actual law.
 
#154
#154
volholio said:
Huh? We aren't dealing with our own words. We are dealing with the law's words, and we are dealing with the courts language which stays that law.

I mean it is our language. It's how we communicate. It's how we become strict constructionists, right?

The law means what it says and all of that, right?

Well, we have to stick to the words.

So, of course I quoted the Court's response. What am I supposed to quote?

I know Americans are ADD/HD, but you all can read closely, right?

I'm assuming you all can read a couple of paragraphs strung together, right?

Am I wrong to assume such skills?
Click to expand...

I see. So any judges ruiling is an accurate interpretatoin of the law? no matter how assine?
 
#155
#155
droski said:
so your argument is that rounding up jews is clearly as unconstitutional as asking people for a drivers license when they get pulled over? no gray area for you huh?
Click to expand...


Aha. I see. You are conflating to separate ideas.

I'm not saying that this Arizona law is akin to rounding up Jewish people. Not at all. The Judge doesn't say that. No one says that. No one with an relevance at least.

What I am saying is that just because something is popular at the moment doesn't make it constitutional.

therefore, I am not swayed, and neither should be the Courts, that there's any relevance to citing the laws popularity or lack thereof.
 
#156
#156
Please tell me how " the law usurped federal authority to set immigration policy". How was federal authority usurped when this law simply grants state authorities the ability to merely verify based on federal standards a legal status.

A person has to first give just cause to be questioned - this means they have done something of question - in other words questionable illegal activity. While this person is being questioned for said activity, they provide proof of citizenship status. If you are driving, do you have a drivers' license? No? Something else I can run in the computer? SSN? Passport? Etc?

This "precedent" opens up a whole new door on states checking on drugs and other violations based on federal statutes. What? You're a suspected terrorist? I'm sorry. I cannot usurp federal law by acting on this. You have a stash of cocaine in your car? A dirty bomb? It's a federal law and I'm a little ol' Barney Fife deputy. I'm gonna have to let you go.....

Wow...extreme ideas in an argument...this is fun!
 
#157
#157
volholio said:
Huh? We aren't dealing with our own words. We are dealing with the law's words, and we are dealing with the courts language which stays that law.

I mean it is our language. It's how we communicate. It's how we become strict constructionists, right?

The law means what it says and all of that, right?

Well, we have to stick to the words.

So, of course I quoted the Court's response. What am I supposed to quote?

I know Americans are ADD/HD, but you all can read closely, right?

I'm assuming you all can read a couple of paragraphs strung together, right?

Am I wrong to assume such skills?
Click to expand...

Claiming a precedent, even though it's absurdly applied to match a political agenda, as the basis for disproving the word "activist" (that was clearly your cause here), is utter garbage. Again, she could have cited any case, twisted some logic to apply it and come this conclusion. That doesn't in any way preclude activism and it damn sure doesn't make her right. She is temporarily right because she's in a position (politically appointed no less) where her word is law until she gets her opinion crammed in her earhole by a higher authority.
 
#158
#158
volholio said:
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 . . .
Click to expand...

So enforcing a federal law is unconstitutional? And comparable to rounding up Jews? You are seriously telling me doing something the federal government does already is unconstitutional? I mean you've already acknowledged the feds do this right? And this was not argued by this judge as wrong correct?
 
#159
#159
volholio said:
Aha. I see. You are conflating to separate ideas.

I'm not saying that this Arizona law is akin to rounding up Jewish people. Not at all. The Judge doesn't say that. No one says that. No one with an relevance at least.

What I am saying is that just because something is popular at the moment doesn't make it constitutional.

therefore, I am not swayed, and neither should be the Courts, that there's any relevance to citing the laws popularity or lack thereof.
Click to expand...
Why pretend now that you're not trying to cross the line between this law and some preposterous scenarios that you've tossed out. In fact, you specifically said: "that, too, would be ruled unconstitutional" as if one of your scenarios was of similar merit.
 
#160
#160
BigPapaVol said:
Claiming a precedent, even though it's absurdly applied to match a political agenda, as the basis for disproving the word "activist" (that was clearly your cause here), is utter garbage. Again, she could have cited any case, twisted some logic to apply it and come this conclusion. That doesn't in any way preclude activism and it damn sure doesn't make her right. She is temporarily right because she's in a position (politically appointed no less) where her word is law until she gets her opinion crammed in her earhole by a higher authority.
Click to expand...

...and as an Arizonan, I can't wait for that day.
 
#161
#161
volholio said:
What I am saying is that just because something is popular at the moment doesn't make it constitutional.

therefore, I am not swayed, and neither should be the Courts, that there's any relevance to citing the laws popularity or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

no what you were saying is that this law is supported by a bunch of racists. if your real point was constitutionality why use such a ridiculous and inflamitory example? the will of the people should be noted in all laws and IS noted in all laws (otherwise said laws never would have been written) within reason. and this isnt' an example of the will of the people going overboard.
 
Last edited:
#162
#162
droski said:
no what you were saying is that this law is supported by a bunch of racists. if your real point was constitutionality why use such a ridiculously and inflamitory example?
Click to expand...

because on legal merit, this opinion is utter garbage and he knows it (I think, sorta kinda).
 
#163
#163
droski said:
I see. So any judges ruiling is an accurate interpretatoin of the law? no matter how assine?
Click to expand...

I am saying that it could be a reasonable interpretation, but others might also have a reasonable interpretation. The key word is "reasonable"? Well, we define that by precedent in law, right?

She grounded her "reasonable interpretation" in precedent. The SCOTUS will now have to overcome that burden and show -- with a majority opinion -- that her interpretation is not reasonable. If that's the case, then that's what the current interpretation shall be.

Of course, I might argue that if even one member of SCOTUS member agrees with the Judge, then her argument is "reasonable," just not currently popular with the Court.

But that's another story, right?
 
#164
#164
volholio said:
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 . . .
Click to expand...

lol, you're trying to tie in 2 different example. you're reaching dude. the jews lived in germany, poland for years, born there, were citizens. how ignorant are you dude
 
#165
#165
droski said:
no what you were saying is that this law is supported by a bunch of racists. if your real point was constitutionality why use such a ridiculous and inflamitory example?
Click to expand...

The law might be supported by a bunch of racists, but that's irrelevant to the law's constitutionality.

Another law which might be supported by a bunch of anti-racists -- like hate crimes legislation -- might also be unconstitutional.

My point is very simple: popularity does not equal constitutionality.

My point is nothing more nor nothing less than that.
 
#166
#166
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a fellow Republican from South Carolina, had a more positive view, calling Brewer’s ruling a “sort of timeout” in the immigration debate. "It stops the law from spreading because any state will have to slow down and think about this. It doesn't solve the problem. It gives us time to re-engage with each other.”

Read more: Judge blocks key parts of Arizona law - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Hey Lindsey...try the feds just doing their job. Here's a novel concept. Enforce a law already on the books. Tell Holder to do what he swore to do. What better way to solve the problem and forgo chit chatting in committee...
​
 
#167
#167
volholio said:
Huh? We aren't dealing with our own words. We are dealing with the law's words, and we are dealing with the courts language which stays that law.

I mean it is our language. It's how we communicate. It's how we become strict constructionists, right?

The law means what it says and all of that, right?

Well, we have to stick to the words.

So, of course I quoted the Court's response. What am I supposed to quote?

I know Americans are ADD/HD, but you all can read closely, right?

I'm assuming you all can read a couple of paragraphs strung together, right?

Am I wrong to assume such skills?
Click to expand...

Upon what tenets did you base your assumptions?

I like your prose. I'm really learning a lot about you, here, and frankly, am excited to learn even more.
 
#168
#168
I'm only up to post #79 and I can already tell that volholio needs to lay off the ganja. It's really impairing his ability to reason.
 
#169
#169
volholio said:
I am saying that it could be a reasonable interpretation, but others might also have a reasonable interpretation. The key word is "reasonable"? Well, we define that by precedent in law, right?

She grounded her "reasonable interpretation" in precedent. The SCOTUS will now have to overcome that burden and show -- with a majority opinion -- that her interpretation is not reasonable. If that's the case, then that's what the current interpretation shall be.

Of course, I might argue that if even one member of SCOTUS member agrees with the Judge, then her argument is "reasonable," just not currently popular with the Court.

But that's another story, right?
Click to expand...

but instead of arguing that this is a proper interpretation your argument seems to be "she's a judge, give me another judge's opinion before i will consider she is wrong." people here have pointed out multiple inconsitancies in her argument, yet you haven't responded to a single one of them.
 
#171
#171
volholio said:
What I am saying is that just because something is popular at the moment doesn't make it constitutional.
Click to expand...

popular at the moment? Catching people who break the law has been pretty popular in the US for a while
 
#175
#175
Bolton also accepted the Obama administration’s arguments that the mandatory-check provision of the Arizona law would gum up the federal immigration enforcement system by sending tens of thousands of additional queries to the Department of Homeland Security center, which interacts with local law enforcement.

So basically what the DoJ is saying is that we do not have the means to verify even for terrorists. So they are admitting that if say another 9/11 happened we could not immediately handle mass requests of verification of suspects on terrorism as well. So the judge is saying because the federal government is incompetent and has not adequately prepared to handle enforcing laws on the books, we should just not worry about those laws. So she strikes down a law NOT on the merits but because of the argument the government supposedly cannot handle requests....
​
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top