Quantcast

If You Doubt the Supreme Court Upheld the Most Important Part of Arizona's Immigration Enforcement Law, Look at the Vicious Response of the Obama Administration to the Ruling

Ken 2012/06/26 01:31:56
IBD Editorials








White House A Sore Winner On Arizona Ruling














The Law: If there's
any doubt the Supreme Court upheld the most substantial elements of
Arizona's law to enforce U.S. immigration law, take a look at the
scorched-earth response from the Obama administration to punish the
state.


The Supreme Court voted 8-0 Monday to uphold a key provision of
Arizona's S.B. 1070 that requires state troopers to check the
immigration status of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally
after they've been caught committing other crimes.


That acknowledges the reality that the unlicensed man barreling down a
desert highway with 40 people sweltering in his van might just be doing
more than driving too fast, and that the bearded man caught with
bomb-making tools and al-Qaida literature in his car might have more
than chemistry on his agenda.


Three other provisions of the Arizona law were thrown out by the
court, thereby leaving illegals the "right" to solicit day jobs on
public streets, the "right" to not carry the same identification they
are required to carry in their home countries and the "right" to not be
deported after officers suspect them of crimes here.


But after the Obama administration and its media allies crowed that
the court ruling was a win, their fury over their loss on the one
provision became obvious.


Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the
administration would cut off ties to Arizona's police and end provisions
of seven 287(g) task force agreements that gave some Arizona police
agencies powers to enforce immigration laws. [By
what authority is one state denied equal protection under the laws of
the United States? This rogue administration is totally out of
control!]




The vindictive, disproportionate response effectively isolates the
state in terms of being far more stringent than anything the
administration has inflicted on Burma, North Korea or Iran.


Federal authorities will no longer take phone calls from Arizona
officers
making immigration inquiries about suspected illegals picked up
in the course of committing crimes, perhaps some quite spectacular
ones.


Instead,
the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service "will tell the local
police to release the person,"
the Washington Times reports. That's de
facto amnesty to yet another group of criminal illegals, done this time
as a means of punishing Arizona for its insolent desire to enforce
federal law. [I don't care if you
are a Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal or anything in between
- you should be outraged by this action!]


It goes to show that the court ruling was never a question of federal
law trumping state law, as the administration has spun its argument in
court, but of election-year pandering for the Latino vote.


The whole federal conflict with Arizona has come about not because
Arizona wanted to make its own laws contradicting federal law, but
because it wanted to enforce federal laws itself.


What does it say about the Obama administration's priorities that it
effectively scraps its sworn pledge to uphold the law, usurps the
legislative function by ignoring federal laws, punishes those who comply
and puts its own re-election first?

Answer:
It shows that this is a rogue administration that feels that is is
unconstrained by our Constitution or the pledges of those in the
administration to protect and defend the Constitution and uphold the
laws of the United States of America!
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Charles R. Anderson 2012/06/27 03:10:18
    Charles R. Anderson
    +1
    The Obama administration has made a childish response from the beginning and now that the Supreme Court has ruled, they are being even more childish. The more powerful and arbitrary the federal government becomes, the more the People put the most wrongheaded and foolish people in charge of it. I sure hope they are going to learn from this mistake and correct it in November.
  • Ken Charles... 2012/06/27 04:15:41 (edited)
    Ken
    True - Obama's attack on the Supreme Court justices over the Citizen's United decision while they were a captive office at the state of the union address was totally uncalled for. Obama is acting more and more like a despot rather than a president who shares power with two other branches. If the Liberals had their way, the Supreme Court would be no check at all on the power of the other two branches, and we could kiss the Constitution goodbye.

    The liberals are attempting to portray the Roberts court as an "activist" court but even the New York Times knows that's not true. Here is the relevant quote: “The Roberts court is finding laws unconstitutional and reversing precedent — two measures of activism — no more often than earlier courts.” The data accompanying the article shows this is an understatement. Specifically, the data show the following:

    - The Warren, Burger and Rehnquist Courts overturned precedents at an average rate of 2.7, 2.8 and 2.4 per term, respectively. The Roberts Court, on the other hand, has only overturned an average of 1.6 precedents per term.

    - The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts struck down an average of 7.9, 12.5, and 8.2 laws per term, whereas the Roberts Court has only invalidated an average of 3 laws per term.

    The data is through 2010, ...

    True - Obama's attack on the Supreme Court justices over the Citizen's United decision while they were a captive office at the state of the union address was totally uncalled for. Obama is acting more and more like a despot rather than a president who shares power with two other branches. If the Liberals had their way, the Supreme Court would be no check at all on the power of the other two branches, and we could kiss the Constitution goodbye.

    The liberals are attempting to portray the Roberts court as an "activist" court but even the New York Times knows that's not true. Here is the relevant quote: “The Roberts court is finding laws unconstitutional and reversing precedent — two measures of activism — no more often than earlier courts.” The data accompanying the article shows this is an understatement. Specifically, the data show the following:

    - The Warren, Burger and Rehnquist Courts overturned precedents at an average rate of 2.7, 2.8 and 2.4 per term, respectively. The Roberts Court, on the other hand, has only overturned an average of 1.6 precedents per term.

    - The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts struck down an average of 7.9, 12.5, and 8.2 laws per term, whereas the Roberts Court has only invalidated an average of 3 laws per term.

    The data is through 2010, but adding the past two terms would not change much.Here is the direct link to the NYT article. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/0...

    If anything, the Roberts court should be invalidating more statutes. Scalia would have upheld all of the Arizona statute - he said if the federal government won't do its job in protecting the states there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves.
    (more)
  • texasred 2012/06/26 22:20:33
    texasred
    +1
    Obama wants his way all of the time. If he doesn't get it, he will do whatever is necessary to make someone pay, even if it's illegal.

    obama
  • JanHopkins 2012/06/26 11:51:59
    JanHopkins
    +1
    Flood their phones and internet with complaints. Keep them so busy they can't do anything.
  • Rodney 2012/06/26 05:04:53
    Rodney
    +4
    These idiots (the Obie admin) thrive on hate and litigation. Do they not understand, or maybe they do and that's their plan, that litigation consumes vast amounts of money? Money that is in very short supply not only for the states, but the federal government as well.
  • CUDDLY BUT STILL CRABBY 2012/06/26 04:39:24
    CUDDLY BUT STILL CRABBY
    +4
    Vindictive and vicious. Yep two words that describe Obama's regime in a nutshell.

    How's that hope and change working out for you morons that voted for him?
  • TruBluTopaz 2012/06/26 03:48:22
    TruBluTopaz
    +2
    So basically this is a big old open door to any criminal, terrorist or other bad guy who wants to come. And the Feds will do nothing. Just more reason to unelect Obama.
  • Ken TruBluT... 2012/06/26 03:52:13
    Ken
    +2
    Exactly! In another blog I posted two articles, one of which said they caught over 350 illegals from countries that sponsor terrorism, and another that said that they only catch around 50% of those attempting to cross. Now we have the major corridor for illegal entry into this nation, Arizona, where Homeland Security has told the local law enforcement who are attempting to help them make this country safe, "Go screw yourself!" Nice, isn't it?
  • TruBluT... Ken 2012/06/26 03:59:48
    TruBluTopaz
    +1
    And where will terrorists head? Las Vegas or LA. If anything happens, Obama has blood on his hands and so does SCOTUS.
  • roboto-pwcm-jla 2012/06/26 03:31:32
    roboto-pwcm-jla
    +4
    There is no doubt, that if the Feds quit taking AZ's phone calls, there will be dead Americans because of it. These guys are babies--horrible nasty babies.
  • Farnsworth 2012/06/26 03:08:52
    Farnsworth
    +4
    And because of this AZ best vote for Romney to end the persecution imposed by this out of control administration.
  • No nonsense NanC...don't BS... 2012/06/26 03:07:04
    No nonsense NanC...don't BS me!
    +5
    "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the
    administration would cut off ties to Arizona's police and end provisions
    of seven 287(g) task force agreements that gave some Arizona police
    agencies powers to enforce immigration laws."

    He is like a childish brat who throws a temper tantrum when he doesn't get
    his own way. He also is the most vindictive POTUS since Nixon, in fact he makes
    Nixon look like "Mr. Nice Guy"

    nixon enemies list

    nixon enemies list

    nixon enemies list
  • wtw 2012/06/26 03:05:30
    wtw
    +4
    Obama wants the constitution rewritten and will skirt the constitution every chance he gets. That is exactly what progressives believe as do all socialist!
  • Mechelle 2012/06/26 03:03:54 (edited)
  • Demonic Rat Hunter 2012/06/26 02:57:55
  • diane RN Demonic... 2012/06/26 03:01:28
    diane RN
    +2
    Love it!! LOL!
  • Don Leuty Demonic... 2012/06/26 04:04:48
    Don Leuty
    +4
    Where have I heard these words, before? They seem to be haunting me from a not so distant past.

    "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

    5 U.S.C. §3331
  • WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/26 02:52:12
    WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    The Obamanation must GO!
  • Christine/Rest in peace Pet... 2012/06/26 02:51:52
    Christine/Rest in peace Peter Br
    +5
    We celebrate the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling, and disrespect the court on the provision that the court upheld. Like his usual method of ignoring what laws he does not like, or rulings of congress that disagree with his agenda, Obama has struck out in vicious attack mode. I wish Obama was as tough internationally with those who mock the US, as he is with people that don't worship his agenda here at home
  • Ken Christi... 2012/06/26 03:55:44 (edited)
    Ken
    +3
    True, the man is a laughingstock internationally! His juvenile "reset button" with Russia went over like a lead balloon, and his advice to the Euro-group to spend themselves into bankruptcy, the way we are doing didn't work out too well. The only economy that's doing well, Germany, didn't take his advice and lowered taxes and regulations.
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/russi...
  • Arizona1950 2012/06/26 02:51:06
    Arizona1950
    +5
    Gov Brewer gave a news conference today and she was very, very happy and sees this as quite a victory for not only AZ but the Constitution as well. As to the issues not embraced or called unconstitutional ... she and her legal team are looking into it. :-)
  • Ken Arizona... 2012/06/26 03:56:48
    Ken
    +2
    Actually Oklahoma had a similar law for years, making it illegal to hire an "undocumented alien," and it worked. Many of them self-deported to other states or home to Mexico.
  • Arizona... Ken 2012/06/26 04:58:14
    Arizona1950
    +1
    Arizona is a border state ... Obama needs to keep the illegals flowing is my best guess. I have read where other states have even tougher laws but Washington doesn't seem to care ...

    Here's the latest ...
    http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
  • Don Leuty 2012/06/26 02:50:34
    Don Leuty
    +4
    Obama appeared to be wise beyond his years 4 years ago. Now, he looks like a spoiled brat. Should have known better. Appearances are often deceiving.
  • Politic... Don Leuty 2012/06/26 03:19:45
    PoliticallyIncorrect
    +3
    Sorry, I thought he was a mental midget 4 years ago and I was not disappointed. He performs down to his standards.
  • Ken Politic... 2012/06/26 03:57:40
    Ken
    +2
    You are right - the only thing he does well is read meaningless platitudes off a teleprompter screen.
  • Politic... Ken 2012/06/26 11:47:52
    PoliticallyIncorrect
    Exactly
  • Teri- Oregon 2012/06/26 02:49:06
    Teri- Oregon
    +3
    Obama needs to be tried for treason along with the entire administration
  • Kane Fernau 2012/06/26 02:43:41
    Kane Fernau
    +3
    Democrat only follow the law if it benefits them.
  • ProudProgressive 2012/06/26 02:17:54
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    The White House is neither desperate nor angry. The Court struck down most of the provisions of the law, and they did not "approve" of anything. The only reason they didn't strike down the racial profiling provision was that they considered it premature. Since the law never actually went into effect there is no proof that it has a discriminatory impact. But they made a point of saying that they were leaving the door open to new lawsuits once the obvious racial impact can be demonstrated.
  • Ken ProudPr... 2012/06/26 02:29:16 (edited)
    Ken
    +8
    "Racial profiling provision?" LMAO! Which one would that be, the provision that allows law enforcement officers who have a reasonable suspicion that someone they stopped for a violation of the law may be in this country illegally, such as having no driver's license or proof of insurance? FYI, you would be asked for for your registration, driver's license and proof of insurance if you were stopped in Arizona, and after getting a load of you they might think you have illegally migrated from Mars! That would be a "reasonable suspicion" in your case, and it has nothing to do with racial profiling.

    You are right though, if there is proof in specific cases that it is being applied in a discriminatory manner, they left the door open to further suits. That's a big "if" so long as law enforcement officers follow the letter of the law. What they did find is that as written the law is constitutional, but they will have to wait to see if it is applied in a constitutional manner, - they said nothing about an "obvious" racial impact - it they had found that it would not have been constitutional at all.

    I see that you have no problem with the vindictive way in which the entire state of Arizona is being treated, all as a political pander to the Hispanic vote.
  • Demonic... Ken 2012/06/26 03:00:36
    Demonic Rat Hunter
    +4
    When will they understand illegal not a race
  • Ken Demonic... 2012/06/26 03:59:51
    Ken
    +2
    It's doubtful they ever will, at least they won't admit it.
  • ProudPr... Ken 2012/06/26 11:26:45
    ProudProgressive
    The state of Arizona is not being treated "vindictively". They passed a law that is largely unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has now confirmed. It is the responsibility of the Justice Department to oppose unconstitutional laws, which is what they did in this case.

    And the problem with the racial profiling provision is that there is no definition of what "reasonable suspicion" means. The Constitution requires that a stop and search can only be made if there is probable cause, supported by a warrant. In Arizona, as people like Sheriff Joe prove daily, "reasonable suspicion" means "Hispanic". THAT is the problem. I would not be stopped in Arizona. I'm not hispanic. I don't speak Spanish, and my car is in good shape.
  • Cognito22 ProudPr... 2012/06/26 02:48:13
    Cognito22
    +4
    Not vindictive?
    I'm still waiting for your explanation of the seven task force agreements that have been pulled.
    Why single out that one state unless it was punitive?
  • SickOfB... ProudPr... 2012/06/26 04:52:31
    SickOfBigGov
    +1
    Ah...the 'ol race card...haven't seen that before.
  • ProudPr... SickOfB... 2012/06/26 11:27:42
    ProudProgressive
    I guess you're not Hispanic, then, so it won't matter to you that Arizona has now made being Hispanic in public a crime.
  • SickOfB... ProudPr... 2012/06/26 14:19:10
    SickOfBigGov
    Balony...they've made being an illegal illegal....as it should be.
  • Mark In Irvine 2012/06/26 01:39:50
    Mark In Irvine
    +3
    Hmm ... I'm a fuzzy-headed knee-jerk lib'rul and i think that the administration's response is the wrong one.
  • Ken Mark In... 2012/06/26 02:30:12

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/21 05:47:29

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals