Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Also calling it pollitics when a judge goes agaist you and a good ruling when they are with you is fabulously hacktastick.
I don't know anyone who was in favor of amnesty when bush was talking about it either. Besides Bush is history; we learn from that. At least some of us do.
Excellent point. What is going to happen is that it will go to the loons in the 9th circuit. They will no doubt uphold Boltons ruling, being the good lil' far lefties they are. It will then make it to the SCOTUS, and as they have done 75% of the time throughout the years, they will reverse the 9th circuit, and Arizona will be on their way to doing the right thing!Boltondelayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers
There is already a federal law that requires immigrants to carry their papers, is she gonna block that one too?
This is a political disaster for Obama and the dem's. Wait and see!
The supreme court gets to pick and choose what cases they hear, they sure as heck aren't gonna hear this one.
BS!....This is a landmark case. Those justices are going to want to get in on this action.Excellent point. What is going to happen is that it will go to the loons in the 9th circuit. They will no doubt uphold Boltons ruling, being the good lil' far lefties they are. It will then make it to the SCOTUS, and as they have done 75% of the time throughout the years, they will reverse the 9th circuit, and Arizona will be on their way to doing the right thing!Boltondelayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers
There is already a federal law that requires immigrants to carry their papers, is she gonna block that one too?
This is a political disaster for Obama and the dem's. Wait and see!
The supreme court gets to pick and choose what cases they hear, they sure as heck aren't gonna hear this one.
Excellent point. What is going to happen is that it will go to the loons in the 9th circuit. They will no doubt uphold Boltons ruling, being the good lil' far lefties they are. It will then make it to the SCOTUS, and as they have done 75% of the time throughout the years, they will reverse the 9th circuit, and Arizona will be on their way to doing the right thing!
This is a political disaster for Obama and the dem's. Wait and see!
The supreme court gets to pick and choose what cases they hear, they sure as heck aren't gonna hear this one.
why do you say that? i think they will hear this one....
Because...it makes EVERYONE have to carry their papers, not just immigrants.Boltondelayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers
There is already a federal law that requires immigrants to carry their papers, is she gonna block that one too?
Hope you're right. I just don't have any faith left in our justice system. Believe it or not, sometimes, I'm happier when I'm proven wrong.BS!....This is a landmark case. Those justices are going to want to get in on this action.Excellent point. What is going to happen is that it will go to the loons in the 9th circuit. They will no doubt uphold Boltons ruling, being the good lil' far lefties they are. It will then make it to the SCOTUS, and as they have done 75% of the time throughout the years, they will reverse the 9th circuit, and Arizona will be on their way to doing the right thing!
This is a political disaster for Obama and the dem's. Wait and see!
The supreme court gets to pick and choose what cases they hear, they sure as heck aren't gonna hear this one.
I don't know anyone who was in favor of amnesty when bush was talking about it either. Besides Bush is history; we learn from that. At least some of us do.
Were they your posts? Then I probably didn't read them.hey ravi.....too scared to address post 98 and 102?
apparently when you are asked to substantiate your claims, you conveniently don't see those posts....
must be nice to make claims without ever having to bother supporting them
I don't know anyone who was in favor of amnesty when bush was talking about it either. Besides Bush is history; we learn from that. At least some of us do.
exactly....and let's not forget how many on the right were against mcshamnesty....
mccain didn't lose just because obama ran on nothing but - mccain is bush - mccain lost because he had a shitty platform and record....
AZ discriminates against legal citizens plain and simple.
Why should any legal citizen show any ID? If I were in AZ I'd enter a Federal building, refuse to show papers then sue for discrimination.
Goose meet gander
When I went into the courthouse in Kent, they never asked me for ID, until I got to the person who I was there to pay my fine for being caught driving without proof of insurance.
Why have ID if we don't have to show it?
I don't know anyone who was in favor of amnesty when bush was talking about it either. Besides Bush is history; we learn from that. At least some of us do.
exactly....and let's not forget how many on the right were against mcshamnesty....
mccain didn't lose just because obama ran on nothing but - mccain is bush - mccain lost because he had a shitty platform and record....
The republican party called me for a donation. They wanted to save their "sinking ship". I pointed out you can't save a sinking ship with the wrong captain, and hung up.
The judges ruling was more or less a washing of the hands of the issue, but the stay was on making it a requirement to check status. However that does not mean an officer cannot check status if that person has not been arrested, if this was so then the entire ICE database that the Federal Govt. shares with state and local law enforcement would have to be dismantled. The other portion that was stayed was the portion that required documentation. Basically SB-1070 has been rendered mute as a result of this of this stay for the time being leaving Arizona back where it started, where the Federal Govt. looks the other way, while the drugs, traffic in human beings, murder, and American job loss continues.
Isn't crime down in Arizona and Texas? I saw one report done about a border town in Texas who said crime was down and the number of illegals crossing the border was down due to more border patrol.
People keep saying we need to do something, but it seems we are.
Kidnapping in Arizona fell for the last three years...long before Arizona declared war on brown people.
When you idiots stop being xenophobic.Kidnapping in Arizona fell for the last three years...long before Arizona declared war on brown people.
It is not racial, when will you idiots learn this?
Were they your posts? Then I probably didn't read them.hey ravi.....too scared to address post 98 and 102?
apparently when you are asked to substantiate your claims, you conveniently don't see those posts....
must be nice to make claims without ever having to bother supporting them
Sometimes I enjoy discussing things with people whose opinion I seek and not the right wing loons.
Why should local police officers be mandated to enforce federal immigration law? And why should everyone be forced to carry identification?The ruling may be temporary, but it's still baseless. There is NO chance of any irreparable harm had the judge not approved the temporary restraining order. Indeed, it is fantasy to claim that there is a likelihood that opponents of the legislation will ultimately prevail.
The ruling was a spineless and gutless abrogation of her actual judicial responsibility.
Let's not kid ourselves. The liberal bias of the judicial branch is quite clear and this is a political question that is being treated (invalidly) as though it were properly justiciable. In her eventual (final) ruling she, like the Higher Courts (with the possible exception of the SCOTUS) are likely going to rule by judicial fiat along the very same lines.
What possible legal justification can exist to prevent a cop from finding out if some illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant?
It really is insane. Libs and other kooks have clearly taken over the asylum.
Those two things clearly run up against the constitution.
please point out where in the constitution these two things run up against....
thanks
