A consequence of a judge gutting the Arizona immigration law

So, a Clinton appointee judge helped the Obama administration gut Arizona’s attempt to enforce immigration law. Do the people in the White House know why there is a Tea Party movement? Or why most independents no longer support the president?

It’s because more and more people see the federal government growing to a size that would have horrified the founders. Under Obama we have an automaker partial takeover, a health care mandate, and a financial services regulatory maze, all riddled with exemptions for elites in business.

So here comes Arizona, which tries to solve an illegal immigration problem that causes that state crime and budget problem. It’s a state seeking a solution that the federal government won’t fix — secure the border, make decisions on who can cross borders. And the Obama administration, by its overt opposition, help squash the law. Americans support Arizona’s law overwhelmingly. What Democrat congressional candidate is going to cheer this decision today? I may be wrong, but I think November is looking worse than horrific for the party that currently controls Washington D.C.

Share
This entry was posted in The Political Surf. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to A consequence of a judge gutting the Arizona immigration law

  1. CB says:

    “Or why most independents no longer support the president?”

    Because he’s appointed people who are continuing many of the former administrations policies. Clean energy? Instead, the MMS was revealed as a completely corrupt agency and oil spills galore. Many of my friends in AR are also severely disappointed with both Ken Salazar (a cattleman in charge of public land grazing? Bias much?) and Vilsak (appointing members of the Sportsman Foundation to advise the “Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council”) and others.

    Meet the new boss… same as the old boss… there are many Obama appointees that completely belie what was promised.

  2. Jack says:

    As a true conservative you should understand that it does not matter if Americans support the law or not. Popular consent should not be a factor when a court is asked to consider the constitutionality of a law. This is especially true where it is a state law at issue. The opinions of Americans in other states should not matter at all.

    I agree that most of the founders would disapprove of the size of the federal government. It seems a bit odd to invoke them here though, in light of the fact that they wrote the Supremacy Clause.

  3. Bruce Wilson says:

    According to the libertarian Cato Institute, “Data show immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born.”

  4. Michael Trujillo says:

    So, you obviously didn’t get anything that was said by commenters to the previous blogs you’ve posted on this subject (Arizona immigration law), so why should anyone bother responding to this one? The only purpose for this current blog seems to be merely to say “I’m outraged!” for the umpteenth time and maintaining your political viewpoint credentials.

    Really, what more can anyone say in response that you haven’t already heard? This is why political discourse is dead in this country. Why not post another book review or interesting tidbit about Mormon culture?

  5. Al says:

    “What Democrat congressional candidate is going to cheer this decision today? ”

    You misspelled “Democratic.” It’s unseemly, frankly.

    I co-sign Michael’s comments. This post does nothing to engage the substance of the judge’s decisions today, nor does it even make an attempt to inform the reader about what the judge said. And the cheap shot about a Clinton-appointed judge? That didn’t seem to matter to Jon Kyl when he enthusiastically endorsed her during her nomination/confirmation process.

  6. BobBecker says:

    Doug:

    Worth noting, I think, that the judge did not “gut” the AZ law. She simply suspended those portions of it she thought substantive legal questions had been raised about until those questions could be resolved in court. She issued, in effect, a temporary restraining order, not a final judgment.

    Much of the commentary I’ve read on line seems to assume that the judge found the AZ law unconstitutional. She did not. Some of what she suspended she did because, she said, there were substantive questions regarding whether the new law violated existing AZ law.

    Again, all that happened is the judge said certain provisions of the law cannot go into effect until the legal questions raised about them have been resolved. So far, that’s all.

  7. Doug Gibson says:

    Michael, Al, the post notes a possible consequence of this judicial decision that I believe you both know is likely to occur, although I will cheerfully admit I was wrong if time proves so. I guess I can only add that to watch many Democratic Party candidates discuss illegal immigration this campaign season will either be amusing or depressing, depending on your personal views.

  8. Al says:

    Doug, I’m fascinated by the contrast between your serious engagement on the gay marriage issue, as contrasted to this post — where your only concern is the fallout for Democratic candidates, rather than as much as a phrase on the merit or substance of the actual legal decision made today [which Bob correctly notes simply holds the potentially harmful elements of the law until future decisions are made on their constitutionality; additionally, Jack and Bruce both make crucially important and correct points about this issue that seem not to matter to your position]. It’s striking how much more interesting, thoughtful, and frankly _better_ your writing is when you’re not aiming simply for the conservative street cred.

  9. cvb says:

    LET’S BOYCOTT EVERY LATINO BUSINESS until Bolton gets it
    We will teach her the hard way that the poeple want SB1070 and laws respected
    Tomorrow let’s start drying out all latino businesses, no more hiring them, we will say no to any latino name, accent, face.
    Nobody can stop Bolton? well nobody can stop my boycott.
    (I know it sucks for legal latinos, sorry for them)
    Officials dont want to handle illegal immigration matters, well millions of Americans will do it themselves.

  10. BobBecker says:

    CVB:

    Thank you for providing strong evidence for those who think the AZ law would have inevitably led to racial profiling and a significant assault on the rights and liberties of American citizens who happen to be, or appear to be, Hispanic. I’d be hard put to think, just off hand, of stronger evidence than your post that on that point at least the Judge’s decision was probably a sound one .

  11. Doug Gibson says:

    The Arizona law mirrors federal law. The Obama administration’s reluctance to argue racial profiling is a tacit admission of that. I doubt the Supreme Court will reject the law but that’s years away. Since the law is equal to federal statute, the administration could have worked with the law to craft a compromise federal law. That wouldn’t have been difficult and the Arizona law could have faded away. Instead, in my opinion the administration challenged the law in what will prove to be a failed attempt to mobilize Hispanics and its base for November. It’s a big mistake; a wasted opportunity to unite both sides.

    I urge readers to go to this article by William Galston in the New Republic, which is no conservative magazine. http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-galston/76631/democrats-republicans-popularity-new-demographics

  12. D. Michael says:

    Bob, maybe you didn’t notice, but it was the suspension of portions of the law that motivated CVB’s racial outburst, not the law itself.

  13. BobBecker says:

    D:

    No. I noticed. But CVB’s post makes it clear, I think, how willing some are to assume that any Hispanic or Hispanic-looking person [citizen or not] is fair game for discrimination in order to punish those who are here illegally. There are some people, sadly not a particularly small number I’m afraid, who tend to think Hispanics because they are Hispanics are not real Americans. CVB’s post seemed to me evidence of that.

    I don’t think challenging the law on grounds that it may or even is likely to lead to racial profiling is a particularly good idea. [Challenging it on state/federal authority grounds does seem to raise a legal question that needs to be resolved before the law takes effect.] But challenging on grounds of racial profiling/discrimination that might occur seems too close to a kind of prior restraint policy to me. If the law went into effect and in fact led to racial profiling, then it could be successfully challenged on those grounds. It’s the anticipatory element of the racial profiling challenge that I don’t like.

    But CVB’s post strengthens the claim, I think, of those who are challenging the law on the grounds that it would lead to illegal profiling that would ensnare American citizens all but inevitably.

  14. Dean Moriarty says:

    The post by Gibson is just another excuse for him to rant about the Democratic party. He makes certain to make mention of the fact that the judge was a Clinton appointment. The law was certain to be challenged. Is Doug surprised or unaware of all the news reports telling of the court action. Many original laws are held up and later revised to meet legal standards.

  15. Dean Moriarty says:

    The post by Doug Gibson was posted within hours of the judges ruling. Did Mr. Gibson read the complete ruling or just write a kinee jerk reaction response? . It continues to amaze me when the far right preaches love for the constitution but opposesw any response by the judical branch they disagree with. Did anyone expect no challenge to the Arizona law?

  16. KG says:

    I would greatly appreciate it if the Standard Examiner would post to the newspaper what the actual United States Code reflects as laws concerning immigration and unauthorized aliens. To clarify; that is unauthorized aliens, not undocumented aliens.
    I believe posting an editorial presenting the United States laws concerning this heated issue of immigration would provide a source of direct education in what is being debated as Federal vs. State enforcement, and where jurisdiction is implied and directed.

    The following links will hopefully help in any reseach:

    http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5142+31++%28unauthor

    http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5147+31++%28unauthorized%20alien%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

    http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5148+18++%28unauthorized%20alien%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

    http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5152+31++%28unauthori

    http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5156+31++%28unauthori

    http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+5099+2++%28section%20

  17. Mark Shenefelt says:

    I’ll never comprehend why some right-wingers have been in an uninterrupted tizzy about the GM and Chrysler bailouts / takeovers. Both vital industry giants were headed to bankruptcy and collapse, events which would have hastened the crash toward a Depression that we were in at the time. I believe history will show Obama’s auto moves were essential and effective. If he had let them implode, the Republicans would really be screaming.

  18. BobBecker says:

    MS:

    Same applies to right-wingers livid about the Bush administration’s emergency bank bail out. Even Bush, peering over the edge into the abyss of another Great Depression, understood that the government… his government… must act and it ways he would have considered unthinkable in more normal times. And act he, and Congress, did. Swiftly. As they should have.

    Now that we’ve stepped back from the brink people on the right have the luxury of tut-tutting about the bail out and punishing Conservatives who voted for it as a difficult alternative to financial Armageddon, like Bennett. It’s a luxury Bush and the Congress made possible for them by the very action they now denounce.

  19. SPO101 says:

    I want AZ Governor Jan Brewer to show papers to prove she’s a human being. I think it was FOX that did a show on extraterrestrials that live among us, and Governor Brewer does resemble some alien from a B Movie, “Invasion of the Brain Snatchers“, right? I’ve have my suspicions about people like Jan Brewer, Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove because of their lack of human qualities.

    As far as the immigration issue goes… Republicans never made a big deal about immigration enforcement during Bush/Cheney but NOW all Republican hell is breaking loose… even though the Obama Administration is deporting MORE illegal’s than Bush ever did. Maybe we should adopt Ronald Wilson Reagan’s immigration policy (look it up morons)

    And funny how I didn’t hear NOT ONE WORD on the Cable News about AZ Gov. Jan Brewer’s connection with the Corrections Corp of America. Not to mention I could stop this immigration problem with one thing… ARREST ALL THOSE conservative business people WHO ARE HIRING THE ILLEGAL WORKERS! Republican Party = Hypocrisy

    On 7-28-10 I was watching Republicans on Morning Joe (MSNBC) preach about being ADULTS when it comes to our economic meltdown. I say BS! The real ADULTS are trying to demand accountability from those who got us in this financial mess. Republicans want to shift the burden of responsibility on Teachers unions and others in the American working class.

    I wonder if the spoiled Silver Spoons on Morning Joe knew how much they hurt Democrats, Progressives, Liberals when they didn’t challenge NJ Gov. Christie. NOW all over the internet the Conservative wacko groupies are swooning all over Christie like he was a rock star. Of course, because of these Republican low grade thought processes, the right wing monkeys now consider teachers, poor people and immigrants the biggest threat to our economy.

    What kind of Americans are stupid enough to believe decent wages/working conditions, regulation, Wall St. reform and making the rich pay their fair share are BAD THINGS! Republicans will take tax dollars away from grade schools to give BP tax breaks/subsidies. DON’T BELIEVE ME, you rightwing numbskulls, CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELVES!
    consciousmc.blogspot.com

  20. Michael Trujillo says:

    “…will say no to any latino name, accent, face.”

    Hey, cvb -

    Are you going to refuse to accept or spend any U.S. currency ($1′s, $2′s, $5′s, $10′s, $20′s, $50′s, $100′s, etc.) that was printed and signed in the last 10 years? The last three U.S. Treasurers have been Latinas. Rosario Marin (appointed by Bush), Anna Escobedo Cabral (appointed by Bush), and Rosa Gumataotao Rios (currently appointed by Obama). Their John Hancocks (or should I say Juana Hancocks) are on every bill printed since 2001.

    Furthermore, as Treasurers, they’re in charge of the IRS. Gonna send your income tax refund back because you refuse to do business with a Latino name?

    And don’t even think about going to the movies or playing video games. Look at the credits and you’ll see a lot of Latino names.

    And don’t eat fruits and vegetables. Who do you think picked them?

    It’s going to be tough to be you for a while.

  21. laytonian says:

    cvb: so it IS all about racism!

    Why else would you single out latinos, when 25% of all illegals aren’t Hispanics?

    Go ahead and boycott EVERYTHING Latino.
    Everything…..and that includes fuel for your vehicles. After all, much of it comes from THE GULF OF MEXICO.

    Have your friends join you. I don’t know where you’re going to get your vegetables or meats from. Maybe you can eat beans? No! Many are from Cortez, Colorado.

  22. Montana says:

    “House Bill 2013” and “SB1070”

    0 = Arizona
    2 = USA/ Our Constitution/ We the People of the United States

    We are a country that is ruled by the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, not by the majority of the day. When you do not know the principles in these documents, therein lays the problem in losing when you are challenged in court.

    This month of July 2010, our U.S. Federal courts have found the so called State of Arizona hate filled legislation namely “House Bill 2013” and “SB1070” Un-constitution (So much for the intellect of Jan Brewer, “Did you read the bills you signed?”). But we all know that they will go crying to the Supreme Court of the United States, please, please, please go. We will fight you in Arizona, any other state, and yes in Washington DC. We will not tire, we will not be silent and we will persevere, I promise you.

    In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme of clans; the Baggers, Birthers and Blowhards (people who love to push their beliefs and hate on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win in November. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

    It’s all about politics: Jan Brewer you were never elected to be Governor, but you have no problem trying to get elected on the back of undocumented workers, you loser (sure you may win but the long-term effects to your so called State is just beginning). Here is a partial list of your hate filled legislation;

    1. S.B. 1070,
    2. House Bill 2013
    3. No permit conceal weapons law,
    4. The famous Birthers law,
    5. Banning Ethnic studies law,
    6. Banning human-animal hybrid (aren’t most GOPers crossed with the Reptilian race?)
    or are they just giving Laurence Gonzales, some great promotion material for his new book “Lucy”.

    7. Could she be behind the Mural in Prescott, Arizona, ordered to be whiten,
    8. On deck to pass, no citizenship to babies born to undocumented workers,

    9. If she can read she should look up Arizona’s House Bill 2779 from two years ago (which was un-constitution and failed when legally challenged),
    10. The boycotted Martin Luther King Day, what idiots don’t want another holiday? Yes, you guessed it Arizona.

    Well Arizona, you can keep boycotting new holidays, passing hate filled legislation and the rest of our country will continue to challenge you in court of law and Boycott your so-called state.

    Lets face it, no one can real believe anything that comes out of Brewer’s mouth, in an interview, this year, in an attempt to gain sympathy, she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (which ended 1945) but of course we find out the truth that father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955. But we are suppose to believe everything else she says, right!

    As they say in the World Cup: Gooooooooal!

  23. tran says:

    leticia olalia morales of 15501 pasadena ave #8 tustin ca 92780 submitted fake employment records to obtain a US work visa. she also used fake documents and paid a consul $5000.00 for a US tourist visa. she is now aplying for citizenship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>