E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe AP reports:
The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's tough new law targeting illegal immigrants. The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn't want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday.
The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's new measure requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops, usurps federal authority.
Tuesday's action has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.
Leave a Comment:
Excellent! Perhaps this can be the catalyst for sane, humane immigration policy.
Which would be what?, enforce and obey existing laws? ... Ooops... Arizona's law mimicks that ~on purpose I might add - the only difference is that it gives an amount of authority to state employeed enforcers to check immigration status and detain and escort offenders while they are already in "custodial arrest" for another crime to federal authorities. ... How inhumane that we would have to follow the law or show proper identification.
Instead of attacking Arizona's Law, why doesn't Obama just enforce Federal Law??? Thats why Arizona created their state law in the first place dummy!!!!
Looks like the good ole USA has declared war on the state of Arizona. Obama may win the battle, but in the long run, he will lose the war.
I can only hope that both political parties come up with something that can address this problem. Let's face it, both parties are to blame for this situation. Corporations are to blame for hiring low wage earning people with suspect backgrounds. The upper class is to blame for hiring nannies,gardeners, grounds keepers for low pay. This problem is about greedy people wanting more things for less money. This problem spans many years and we can't expect this current administration to handle it due to an inept Congress. Time after time Congress (both parties) will not deal with the toughest of the tough issues. They want all of the accolades but they have no idea what it means to actually gut out the toughest issues facing this country. John, I hope things get better there in AZ, but as long as we have the current situation playing out in Congress continue, the situation will never get solved. Congress has really become a complete utter failure to this country.
Well said, Terry!
Oh Brother!
This thread is going to bring out the very best & brightest the right wing nuts have to offer! lol
Time for some popcorn...
And for the most part, the left wing nuts will remain quiet, because they are barely bright enough to know when they are fighting a losing battle
Hey Feisty - the best and brightest of the repugnant ones is just Neanderthalus Republicanus. Yep time for popcorn as we laugh at how pathetic their best and brightest are.
LOL Eric! Love it & voted!
Right wing nut jobs - what in your book constitutes a "right wing nut job" - someone who just would like to see laws enforced and communities protected? I hope that you will find your paradise with all the law breakers as your neighbors but please don't come to me to help finance your paradise.
Completely politically tone-deaf.
There are five Democratic House members from Arizona.
Three of the five signed what was described as a sternly-worded letter to President Obama urging him not to pursue the lawsuit.
That's all you need to know about the politics of this...except that it's just one more item in a list of unpopular initiatives by this Administration.
So, Mixed, if the Administration believes that the Arizona is in violation of the constitution they should do nothing because the majority of the citizens think the constitution is wrong?
In other words – follow the constitution when it serves you well and ignore it when goes against what you believe.
But Dennis-
I don't believe for a minute that Eric Holder and the Justice Department ARE acting on the merits in this case.
That's your argument...not mine.
President Obama and AG Holder are ideologues...they're acting on ideology.
That's why AG Holder is filing a lawsuit here...and not a civil rights violation lawsuit in the Philadelphia voter-intimidation case.
Holder and Obama are wrong on the politics and the merits of the Arizona lawsuit...we'll see what the courts have to say.
Mixed, That is exactly why you file a suite so that the court can determine the constitutionality.
I don’t know what is in the President’s mind – I’m not, like you, a mind reader. But I do believe it should be determined if this is a states’ right or not.
Dennis-
Maybe while this thing is being determined in the courts, the Obama Administration could get together with the state of Arizona and begin to enforce the nation's existing federal immigration laws.
We know that at least one of the two is interested in doing that, don't we?
If Erick Holder were in the least concerned with the contitution, he would NOT have ORDERED the investigation in the voter intimidation by the New Black Panther movement to be DROPPED.
There is a whistle-blower testifying this week before congress on this case.
Don't hold your breath waiting for First Read to mention it.
no joe, re your comment
Hannity falsely claims charges dropped against New Black Panther carrying nightstick.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201001260003
Dennis-
Can we all agree that uniformed thugs, whether it be good-ole-boys dressed up like Klansmen, or racist skinheads in neo-Nazi uniforms, or others (use your imagination here, Dennis) shouldn't be standing in front of polling places intimidating voters?
And...if we can agree on that, well, I guess we just all have to get together and persuade AG Holder that it's not that great an idea either.
This is how you form a consensus, Dennis...everyone agreeing to a common-sense idea or concept.
It might even lead to bi-partisanship...heaven forbid.
Mixed,
You say things like “And...if we can agree on that” and “This is how you form a consensus”
But you have not given on any point. You make it sound like you wan to compromise but you give nothing but you want me to agree.
So what are you willing to concede on or agree to/with?
Let's start with the current discussion, Dennis...
Do you think anyone should station uniformed thugs at polling places?
Anyone at all?
And, if they do...
Should Holder's Justice Department do anything about it?
Honestly, Dennis...
What concessions have YOU made?
What did I miss, Dennis...?
Mixed, let’s face it; all you want is for others to agree with you. The discussion started out with you post on the AZ law. The item you refer to now is a response I made to no joe – not you.
So, you want to leave it at that Dennis?
You have no opinion on whether or not uniformed thugs ought to be able to stand in front of polling places, intimidating voters on election day?
If you're OK with that being your position...well, then I guess I am.
Apparently, you and AG Holder share that lack of a definitive position on the matter.
Nice chatting with you.
This event is as predictable as rain falling from the sky. As a past resident of Arizona, I am aware that my Republican friends (and some moderates) support the Arizona law. But in the broader perspective, the law will be found unconstitutional. Militia folks will be worked up like they were in the 80's. But don't expect a rebellion.
Fighting for immigration reform can only help our President. This is an important issue for the Latino population. To me, the question is, "Does Congress have the courage to do what is right and pass some important legislation? We are back to "balls" again. I'm not sure they do.
I don't believe it will be found to be unconstitutional since is says the same thing as the federal law says. The constitution leaves to the federal government the right to make immigration law, which I believe means setting the number allowed in, type of visa issued, right to take US citizenship test and other related issues. There is no mention in any law that says only the federal government can arrest someone for being in the states illegally. Remember the federal government is in violation of federal laws when they refuse to enforce the current laws. The democrats only want to make this a political issue because they want to protect the latino votes in November.
So what's republicans' excuse? They act like they don't care about votes in November. All republicans care about is making this president fail. Anything other than that - falls on deaf ears. I don't know why the baggers come to this site. They NEVER have anything to offer except criticism and disdain for the president, and consequent hate of this country because of who the leader is. That is just plain delusional. But hey - that's the bagger/repuke/cons way. Nothing but the negative. All I know is, if the law was constitutional, the president would not be pursuing this course of action. You know why I know it's unconstitutional - because if it were not, with all the hate this president receives, he wouldn't dare step out there without being on confident footing? I know you baggers would love for the president to be a dummy, but unfortunately for many of you - he's so far ahead of you that all you can do is bi#ch, moan, groan, and complain.
Very well put!!! Thank you!!!
This is not dissimilar than the Judge in New Orleans ruling that the 6 month drilling ban had to be lifted because of various laws that took precedence over a blanket drilling moratorium amnnounced by the President. Many did not like the Judge's decision in this case but the laws were followed. In a similar light many may not like it if the Arizona Law were to be over-turned or over-ruled if found to be in violation of a federal law or one that takes precedence over the State law. As John Adams once stated "we are a nation of laws". In order to avoid anarchy and/or chaos established laws should be followed. And if found to be harmful to a nation and its people rather than viloate the law which would create even more anarchy and chaos, change the law.
About time that Attorney General Eric Holder protect the Constitution and all people by filing a lawsuit against the Facist Racist profiling law in arizona. Can't wait to hear Sieg Heil Jan Brewer sing "I fought the law and the law won" after she loses her pathetic bid to turn arizona white. The federal inaction is due to the dopes of nope wasting years fighting meaningful comprehensive immigration reform.
The White Supremacist Birchers only want to do immigration reform by half measures of wasting taxpayer money on more fences and troops for the border but not going after the corrupt conservative businessmen who keep hiring the "guest workers" which is just a nice euphemism for Slaves of Serfs. As long as there are corrupt conservative employers who want to cheat to make money by hiring cheap illegal immigrants then no amount of fences or troops will keep them from crossing the border.
When will there be another poll out on arizona's racist profiling law? At first it polled very popular with 66% of people polled, and then it dropped to 61% and the last poll I saw a few weeks ago had it at 51%. I bet the rightwing racists don't want anymore polls as we'll see the numbers flip to a majority of those polled being against arizona's racist profiling law.
FYI, The latest poll have 66% favor the law in Arizona. The Nation as a whole favors the law by 58%. Also 62% believe that the Justice Dept. should not challange the law.
Eric are you an illegal or born to one? Just asking.
How does this become racial profiling when it's a case of law breaking? If the majority of the law breakers are of hispanic origin it's them that are racial profiling themselves as lawbreakers. And for the blogger who likens the Governor of Arizonia to Hitler, I would like to see you manage the costs of illegal non-contributing illegal aliens in Arizona and the crime rate and do a better job. The governor is taking steps to Protect her residents that's her job --not to protect the criminals.
Its about damn time that this lawsuit was filed. I look forward to the debates on this issue through the election cycle. I want to hear the GOP justify their hateful positions to the media. Let's have the debate for all to hear.
How is trying to enforce immigration policy hateful? Is it hateful to try to find out about people before they get to come to this country? Do we have the right to ask the illegals to engage in the legal process and not flaunt our laws?
Oh My! If only immigration was illegal 10,000 years ago.
The interesting thing is that liberal Democrats argue that rough interrogation of terrorists is really, really bad because we are a nation of laws ....blah blah
But then we have them in Ariz and we ignore them....
Having just spent the weekend in Arizona, I can say that SB1070 is not only widely popular there, it is also working very well. Popular because the situation is so bad. It's not just the economic cnsequences of so many illegals which has literally destroyed the state's education, hospitals, and social networks, its also the incredible violence that happens every day. And working well because contrary to the false assertions, illegals will self deport. Unfortunately they are going to other states, not back to Mexico. That changes with more laws coming online.
The other very simple fact is that the current immigration system is not broken, it's just not enforced. Is immigration a federal issue? Yes. Is it a suicide pact? No. Arizona has the absolute right to defend itself. And as we know, Arizona is pretty good at drafting these types of laws. It is seven for seven on legal challenges. And the Holder DOJ? Doesn't seem to be very competent. I also bet that Arizona would voluntarily revoke SB 1070 should the Feds decide to actually enforce the existing laws. But they will not. Arizona has to act. There really are signs warning US citizens to stay out of parts of Arizona becasue of the drug violence. That is simply untenable, and is a direct admission by the Feds that they cannot protect the country. You really have to see the signs to believe it.
And come on - we already tried it the progressive's way. Just twenty four years ago we all went along with blanket amnesty in exchange for the promise of strict enforcement. We got the amnesty, as since then 20 million more illegals. No strict enforcement. Why would any rational person believe that scheme will be any different this time?
I could not have said this better myself. Great post!
you mean that left wing socialist Ronald Reagan?
Once again Fiesty, you are such an idiot.
Eric - Neanderthalus Republicanus? Come on you can do better than that! You are soooo smart Eric. Go home.
Hey NewDay... Looks who's back... our very own FR newly minted troll! LMAO!
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Feisty. You have a REAL fan there. Too bad he/she has nothing of value to contribute.
"Too bad he/she has nothing of value to contribute"....
And by that, she's doing a great job of imitating Feisty!
No worries Jill - you'll always be my #1 Fan! Although I am concerned because it's starting to resemble an obsession! LMAO
Nice to see I can still get under your thin skin! ;0)
I am a Democrat and I support the Arizona law, illegals should be found, arrested and sent back to their countries, I'm sick and tired of my tax dollars going to help their low income families out. They have no business being here and should not be granted asylum or citizenship. I am sick and tired of our government, be them Republican or Democrat, politicizing this issue to earn votes, GET THEM OUT of our country.
I agree that illegals need to be deported, on the other hand the law should also address the problem of hiring illegals as well. As I stated in my earlier post greedy people hire illegals so they can pay low wages and reap the benefits of doing such. Until that is addressed as well we will continue to have a problem with illegals.
Terry - I posted on this issue before as have you. I agree with you about the companies hiring them. Others are quick to point to the illegal entrance of immigrants and call them criminals, but they do not raise a concern about the hiring practices of the employeers who hire them (also criminal). By the way, I think you understand and are smart enough to know that deportation for all undocumented immigrants is not feasible.
The conservatives are so anti-labor union that they will continue to hire undocumented immigrants so they can pay low wages to them instead of hiring citizens who may happen to be union members.
The article I'm commenting on is about the AZ law and therefore will not reiterate things I have posted before about the need for comprehsive immigration reform.
Instead I wanted to bring up the question, Why would people in AZ want the police to waste their time, energy and money doing a job only the feds can do? Unlike the falsehold from Gov. Brewer that crime is up on the border and that the majority of immigrants are working as drug mules.
Crime is actually down along the border according to ABC news. A similar story was in the LA Times.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/crime-heart-arizona-immigration-debate/story?id=10763907
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/arizona-immigration-crime-border-safer.html
How will a state with a 2 billion dollar budget deficit balance their budget? Brewer has already proposed to cut state employee positions and salaries, including police officers, reduce eductation funding and reduce kids health insurance. Yes I'm cherry picking here, but my main point is, how can the police manage this new task (racial profiling latinos), including citizens and legal immigrants when their budgets are being reduced?
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget
Born and raised in Tucson. Class of 94. My ethnic background is Vietnamese mother and State Dept. Vietnam Embassy linguist African-American West Virginian father.
Pima County Sherriffs and Marana Cops pulled me over for window tint and anything else possible. Those who have never been a victim of profiling/harrassment cannot argue that the new AZ immigration law will not cause unjust profiling.
Require employers to verify SS numbers, no non-emergency healthcare for immigrants, no amnesty only work visas renewed every 5 yrs, etc are the reforms needed. Not a law authorizing the a local sherrif deputy to DEMAND a birth cert if a person is wearing a cowboy boots and a 10 gallon hat
Is California next to be sued?
Last week after President Obama's speech, I read the discussion here. Despite differences on how to deal with the illegals currently here, right and left were saying the same thing. We need immigration reform. Nearly every person listed the same priorities in some form or another: fix the sytem, corporations should be punished for hiring illegals, secure the border, find a way to solve the problem of the millions already here, etc.
My point is that it was obvious that republicans, democrats and independents want the Federal Government to do something. Why is it then that conventional wisdom in Washington DC says there is no appetite for reforming the immigration system? The GOP legislators in particular demand something be done yet are unwilling to do something themselves. Democratic legislators don't want to fight the battle until after the elections. The illegal problem is like every other big problem in this country whether it is health care reform or a shift to clean, renewable energy--it is easier to kick the can down the road. Sooner or later we will reach the end of the road.
I do recall reading someone's comment saying that illegals in this country was a fairly new problem in the midwest and northern states. But that's not true, it has been a problem for many decades. When I was in grade school, migrant workers on work permits came to Iowa every summer to pick tomatoes, melons, sweet corn. They moved from state to state, region to region picking varioius crops. Each year some stayed in this country illegally.
I think you're right, Jody--there are points of agreement on both sides but no political will to find common ground and address the issue. I don't think the GOP can move away from their policy of "no" to everything. They may be injuring themselves for a generation or more with Hispanic voters but still can't seem to stop themselves.
Jody & Steeler Fan:
Our legislator's willingness to pay lip service to needing some type of immigration reform yet unwillingness to step up with a plan to reform immigration is the result of that age old theory called" The Abilene Paradox". Put simply, everyone wants to get on the bandwagon to have their say or to complain to make a political point that we need this or that when it comes to the illegal immigration issue, but none want to be held accountable for any specific ideas or suggestions to resolve the same.
Everyone wants to drive 50 miles one way in a crowded un-airconditioned vehicle to Abilene for lunch on a day where the temperature is 115 in the shade, but after returning home following a miserable sweaty 100 mile round trip no one wants to take credit (or blame) for being the one to have suggested the trip in the first place.
Everyone wants to be involved and to take the trip (and they certainly want their opinion heard), but no one wants to be held accountable if the trip don't turn out exactly like everyone thought it would.
adidas 503, you just make too much sense. No fuss, no muss, just clear boundaries and responsibilities.
When republicans want to get serious about illegal immigration, they will stop their co-dependency with scabby greedy employers who have hired 20 million illegals in this country. It's a source of unlimited cheap labor and republicans seem to favor law and order except when it comes to big-box corporations and GOP contributors. Fine these employers and put them in jail...And stop filibustering Democratic sanctions against "RAT employers". Republicans are against any real penalties against these employers. What did Bush (8 years) and the republican congress (12 years) do about illegal immigration? The answer is "NOTHING". Except cash illegal scabby corporate checks from people they protect.
Whether it"s healthcare,cap and trade,card check and now this lawsuit,Obama always seems to be against the overwhelming majority of this country.When the Black Panthers are caught on film and witnesses also come forward to testify they were threatened into not voting and called crackers and white devils and threatened with batons and this president sees to it that all charges are dropped we have a problem,Obama is the racist pig just like his friend Eric Holder.
If you want a quick easy and cheap fix to the immigration policy youre in luck! I have the solution right here....
Its really quite simple.....
Step 1: Give a 1-2 month "Amnesty" period to illegal immigrants to return to whatever country they came here illegally in the first place. If those people wish to be here then allow them to apply for citizenship legally and if they pass all the required checks then they are welcomed here with open arms.
Step 2: If a person is caught here illegally after the "amnesty" period throw them in jail for a couple years.
Now before the liberals go balistic on me with your "They're only here to make a better life" crap lets analyze some things...... Correct me if Im wrong (and its known to happen sometimes) but to be an ILLEGAL alien that would entail you being here ILLEGALLY erego that person's very being here is against the law of this country. That makes an illegal immigrant a CRIMINAL and CRIMINALS go to jail.
Step 3: Send the Corps of Engineers and the National Guard (for protection -- with orders to fire upon anyone they catch trying to cross the border illegally) down to the border to construct an actual fence that will keep people that are not allowed to be here out of here.
These simple steps solve many problems..... one of which being part of the health care cost issue as the 11-30 million illegal aliens are no longer using our health care system and not paying.
The penalty is jail not amnesty. They have already turned criminal by being here. They leave period. Confiscate any material items they have collected, sell it off to pay for their departure after a jail sentence has been satisfied.
Once again Larry has all of the answers wrapped up with a pretty little bow... lol
Where exactly Larry are we going to jail all of these people? We are currently facing a overcrowded prison population to begin with!
The 'compassion' exhited by some on this thread is simply... overwhelming *insert snark*
And why do we have overcrowded prisons?
Could have to do at all with the drugs coming over our porus border, or the illegal immigrants coming here and joining street gangs like in Los Angelas?
Any chance of that being the case?
Feisty dear..... Ill try to use little words so you understand ok hun?
I have compassion for every person here (ready for the important word? ok!) LEGALLY.
As far as illegal immigrants go...every single man woman child here illegally is a (ready for another important word?) CRIMINAL! Theyre very being here makes them a criminal. I believe in trying to rehabilitae criminals that are actually Americans...... illegal immigrants I could care less about. The compassion in my idea comes in giving them a period of time to leave with no reprucusions for their (up to the moment they leave) illegal activity (living here) -- Feisty, pay attention dear (man its like talking to my 8 year old) -- illegal immigrants are what again? Remember that big fancy word I used? CRIMINALS!!! Good job Feisty....
Fiesty,
Why don't you stop making fun of Larry and, I know this will sound wild, explain your "answer" to the immigration problem. Do you agree we have a problem in AZ? Or do you think everything is OK?
If you do agree there is a problem, please explain to me how the AZ law is wrong? Please give specific details. And, how is Obama trying to secure our borders?
I would lay odds that Fiesty does not have a coherent opinion when it comes to illegal immigration. She would rather spew asinine comments that do nothing but highlight the stupidity of her redhead.
Hey Larry... Why can't you and the rest of the right wing nuts EVER answer a question that's posed to you?
I asked you WHERE are you going to lock up these 'criminals'!
Care to try to answer it again without hurting yourself? As for your compassion - I saw all I read all I needed from you last week! The hypocrisy coming from a supposed church goer was astounding!
John: Do me a favor and put me back on ignore! I've stated MANY times my position... not my problem if you didn't read it!
For any right wing nut (Larry, et al) to suggest that illegal immigration is a problem that started with this President is so ridiculous as to defy any credibility whatsoever. For any right wing nut to suggest that the Republicans have any interest in sitting down and solving this problem is equally silly. For those of you who don't get what this lawsuit is about, let's see if I can simplify it for you: The Federal Government will be asking the court to protect its reserved power to secure the borders. Now, you can make the argument that the Federal govt. has failed in that duty and I would agree with you...as long as you do not dissemble about that problem existing for a very long time and the Republicans being complicit in it. By the way, the right wing nut hero Reagan did give amnesty to illegals. Does that make him treasonous? Or was it okay because he had a great big "R" behind his name?
OH, and Larry, still waiting for your citation on Jefferson saying that this is a Christian country.
nEWDAY
Your post is something I think we can both agree on..... Both sides have their reasons for not wanting to fix the issue..... (keep in mind Im neither a Republican or a Democrat. Im a conservative. ) Republicans do like having the "low cost workers" but Democrats want amnesty so that the illegals will vote for them. (being honest about both sides here)
Now keep in mind when Regan did his amnesty I was a couple years old (I just turned 30 this year)so I havent really read up on what he did.
You know what.... here Im going to go this route: I could care less about the R or the D behind someones name. To be honest if I was old enough (I was 16 at the time) I would have voted for Perot in 96.
I want people in the government who arent going to spend us into bankruptcy, are going to stand firm on the right to life for unborn children, stand up against same sex marriage, will fix the borders and finally (at the state or federal level) act seriously against illegal immigration. I want a President who will (like the new NJ governor) work with Congress and make tough decisions and balance the budget. I want a federal government that stays out of my business and my affairs. They have no need to tell me how much salt to put in my food, not to smoke or that I need to excercise. Those are desicion I alone get to make. I want people in government that realize that they DO NOT grant me any rights. All my rights come from God alone. I want a government that tells the citizenry "Sorry but we dont have the money so all entitlement except for military retirement, VA benefits and certain disability payments are suspended indefinetely". I also would vote and volunteer for (in a heart beat) the first candidate (R or D) that campaigned on term limits of no more than two terms for Senate and Congress seats. The same with the Supreme Court.
Thats just a brief desription of what I (and I believe most Americans) want out of my government. The easiest way to explain what Im looking for is this: I want my elected officials to remember (learn?) that they work for me not the other way around.
And here is where you go completely off the tracks, Larry: Your beliefs about government do not translate into what "(and I believe most Americans) want out of my government". You are speaking only for yourself, you certainly do not speak for me. Some of the things that you want government involved in, same sex marriage, abortion and the like are private issues for families, they are not up to YOU to decide for all. I am tired beyond belief of people like you screaming that you want the government to work for you, but gee whiz, not that other guy who lives a different lifestyle than you do. That doesn't make you a conservative, it makes you a control freak. Families can make those intimate decisions without your help. You claim you want the Federal Government to stay out of "your business and your affairs" but if it is a gay couple asking to be recognized as married, you want the government to tell them no. In other words Larry, you, sir, are a hypocrite. As to the rest of it: If you would have voted for Perot, you are a fool. You may have been too young to realize how he self destructed, and once he got past sound bites, there was nothing there. You listed what you think government ought to fund...now list what you are willing to do without. I know Minot, and it would dry up and blow away if the Feds didn't keep that air base there. You willing to have it go on the next round of base closings? Or does that impact you too closely? And I am still waiting: provide the quote of Jefferson saying that this is a Christian country, though others were welcome here.
Thank you New. I grew weary of attempting to reason with Larry. You are a patient man and made all the points I would have. You got my vote!
Thanks, Disgusted: it is a constant irritant to me that people like that are always screaming some variation of these words "rights for ME but not for THEE!
Nice Job NewDay! Control Freak was a perfect description... Larry doesn't want to answer questions he only wants to complain! You got my vote too!
Oh and Disgusted... NewDay's a 'she'! ;0)
I keep wondering, Feisty and Disgusted, when those people who claim they know the Founder's intent actually read what the Founders had to say. It is clear to me that Larry is repeating things that he heard. No one , who has actually read what Jefferson and Madison had to say would agree with him. This Limbaugh nonsense that the Founders were conservative because they believed in less govt. also cheeses me off. If that were true...we would still have the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now. The tenor of the times, and what the college dropout Limbaugh doesn't get, is that govt's around the world were largely controlled by autocratic monarchies. What the Founders said is that man can rule himself. That is why it was revolutionary, and that is what makes them Liberals.
This lawsiut is just more tax dollars going to waste. The Dumbama administration is highly practiced in dumb moves. This is another blunder in which he will end up realizing his downfall this November. With a mass Exodus of incumbents and a new batch of conservatives taking over he will find himself on the wrong side of the people for the balance of his very short career. It won't matter if they are Democrats or Republicans, they will not be favorable to Obama.
Remember the State of the Union Speech when Obama said he was "Lazer Focused on Jobs"??? The only thing he's "Lazer Focused On" is getting re-elected, the rest is just song and dance Baby!!
LMAO? Troll? You must have hit the sauce early again today Fiesty.
I like and appreciate it when you show your true colors by slamming anyone who doesn't believe in your political viewpoint.
I did get my popcorn out today to read the comments from you, Eric, Terry, and your kind. It is very sad to know that some of fellow Americans have such deluded thoughts.
BTW, I am not a right wing wingnut who loves GW Bush.
I stand by my earlier observation that in a basement somewhere in OH the 'war room' is up and running again & Cheeto's are being passed around freely!
This Lawsuit is all about CONTROL. The current Administration wants to control the States and the People. They want a say in every aspect of our lives. They want to control our Freedom inorder to control the vote.
If you had tinted windows how could they see you to profile you. And here in Michigan they pull anyone with tinted windows over - whites, blacks, etc. so it's not profiling it's a safety concern that you can see out and others can see in.
Tinted windows in arizona is a little more common than tinted windows in michigan. As long as yo u have side view mirrors your rear window can be "blocked". When cruisin around as kids do in High School, my driver and passenger windows were rolled down.