Activist Judge Blocks Arizona SB1070

#177
#177
volholio said:
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.
Click to expand...

And how many posts has it taken your expert prose to state this over-simplistic fact?

As an aside, and just to echo your thoughts, water is wet.

I don't think that any reasonable person is asserting that they believe the popularity of this law (and make no mistake, its overwhelmingly popular) somehow magically renders it constitutional. Correlation is not causation.

You do realize that there is no way - ZERO - that the liberals win this fight, right? I mean, regardless as to what the court finds, you guys (liberals, like yourself) are absolutely screwed. Have you taken a moment to consider this?

Please do so now, as I laugh at your doing so.
 
#178
#178
OrangeEmpire said:
I smell a bigot......

:eek:k:
Click to expand...

but he was just objectively supporting the judge's strict adherence to legal process. Calling me a racist was just a part of that line of thinking. It fits as well as the precedent cases and twisted arguments do in this case, so it must be right.
 
#184
#184
CSpindizzy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Again, I'll upset some of you, but I'll have to provide the Judge's response to your query:

1) The United States makes essentially the same arguments about this requirement.

the United States argues that this requirement impermissibly burdens and redirects federal resources away from federally-established
priorities. (Id.) The United States’ arguments regarding burdening of federal resources are identical to those outlined above and will not be restated. However, the United States makes several arguments with respect to the burden on lawfully-present aliens that are specific to or slightly different in the context of the first sentence of Section 2(B).

Certain categories of people with transitional status and foreign visitors from countries that are part of the Visa Waiver Program will not have readily available documentation of their authorization to remain in the United States, thus potentially subjecting them to arrest or detention, in addition to the burden of “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” Hines, 312 U.S. at 74. In Hines, the Supreme Court emphasized the important
federal responsibility to maintain international relationships, for the protection of American
citizens abroad as well as to ensure uniform national foreign policy. Id. at 62-66; see also
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 700 (2001) (“We recognize . . . the Nation’s need to ‘speak
with one voice’ in immigration matters.”). The United States asserts, and the Court agrees,
that “the federal government has long rejected a system by which aliens’ papers are routinely
demanded and checked.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 26.)11 The Court finds that this requirement imposes
an unacceptable burden on lawfully-present aliens."



CSpindizzy said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Good point, but I think they cover that above in the "one voice" argument that was found in the Hines case. Who prosecutes drug offenses anyway? Is that state or federal court?

Immigration is only federal court.
 
#185
#185
Tenacious D said:
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.
Click to expand...

On what do I base my assumption that you can read multiple paragraphs at time?

In fact, I was asking if I could assume such.
 
#188
#188
droski said:
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.
Click to expand...

Kind of, yes. But that's how our system works, right?

She didn't just decree the law to be "wrong." She said, based on these other cases, I am making a bet that the SCOTUS will agree with me.

We'll see.


I strongly disagree, however, that any of you have shown how she misinterprets the law.
 
#191
#191
volholio said:
I am Volholio. I've always posted under this name. I just used post at Gridscape, but I left after the change of ownership.

Will you all accept my presence here?
Click to expand...

I'm down. We haven't had a piñata in here in a long time. :dance2:
 
#193
#193
volholio said:
It sounds like it since you want the gov't to check on everyone's papers, etc.
Click to expand...

This is a very lame comment, for the second time.

Maybe you should have added the dumbass and dead wrong implied racist comment to make it mildly more useful.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#195
#195
the United States argues that this requirement impermissibly burdens and redirects federal resources away from federally-established priorities.
Click to expand...

So inquiries to ICE about legal status is redirecting federal resources away from what they are supposed to be doing? How does asking the experts and to whose domain the issue resides burdening them and redirecting resources away? God forbid we ask the guy who gets paid a fat salary to do this daily have to increase his workload. Type faster monkey! Or better yet a state law enforcement officer to merely connect to a federal server a few more times a day.

Again, this would not even be an issue if the federal government were actually doing what they claim the states are usurping on. You cannot usurp on a matter that is not even being carried out.

I know there was an issue here in GA about state universities checking the legal status of students. Perhaps those students can argue against states inquiring on that as well...
 
#196
#196
Volholio, if you are going to stick around, you need to make the picture below your avatar.

clown.jpg
 
#199
#199
volholio said:
It sounds like it since you want the gov't to check on everyone's papers, etc.
Click to expand...

They ask employers to verify for work.

Just don't speed or break the law and they won't have to check your papers. How dare anyone check your legal status....the job checking if you're a felon...shame on you. The day care checking to see if you're a pedophile...naughty....the polling place to see if you're registered, a felon, etc. The audacity of checking someone to see if they're on the up and up. I guess next time I get pulled over, I will insist the cops not check for outstanding warrants or anything else on my history....
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top