As predicted, the Supreme Court has upheld a key part of Arizona’s immigration law but struck down other parts.
The decision is here (.pdf).
I will boldly predict a 5-4 decision overturning ObamaCare on narrow grounds, overturning the whole statute and not just the mandate. Still not sure when that opinion will come down.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Powered by WordPress.
obamacare will be announced on thursday.
razor419 (239cef) — 6/25/2012 @ 7:46 amlooks like we have to wait for 10AM Thursday…
bastages!
redc1c4 (403dff) — 6/25/2012 @ 7:47 amTaking down the mandate alone would be a huge disaster. I can see the temptation to try to give both sides something, but it really would be totally unworkable and the long view would strongly avoid this.
I’m hearing that Justice Roberts probably wrote that opinion.
I don’t think these rulings have much to do with personal differences. But I bet Obama is wishing he hadn’t treated the Court the way he did in that SOTU a couple years back. That was stupid and petty. Not that I want Obama to be good at politics, and he really isn’t despite politicizing anything.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/25/2012 @ 7:50 am“stupid and petty” is Ear Leader’s default setting.
in fact, i’m fairly certain that is our SCOAMF’s *only* setting.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:01 amAm I right that the heart of SB1070, Arizona’s requirement that state and local law enforcement check immigration status, was upheld 8-0?
I’d like to see a list of expert media quotes about this evil and supposedly unconstitutional provision. It looks to me like the liberals could be more out-of-touch (or rather ignorantly mistaken) here than on Obamacare.
Maybe they should get some new experts?
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:03 amWhy did he even take on health care reform when the economy was in so much trouble? It was so burdensome on employers it was obviously going to prolong economic problems. It was unpopular and took all of Obama’s political capital, and because they rammed it through they didn’t vet out the problems, so all that capital was probably wasted as the law will be thrown out anyway.
Not that I would have agreed with this, but had Obama focused on major public works programs, he’d probably be a hero to his party and unstoppable for November. Hell, had he simply kept his (completely BS) promises on spending I’d be tempted to vote for him.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:06 amWow, what a stinging rebuke to Obama justice dep’t.
Obama views states as Federal dependents, just like everyone else. Looks like the word Federal might preserve its meaning for another generation.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:08 amI’m disappointed that they struck down the other 3 provisions. At least it should be a crime for an illegal to work in Arizona.
“The justices struck down three other parts of the law:
•One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
MyOpinion (ea4bfa) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:08 am•One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
•And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.”
Make sure to have this photo up while you read that opinion:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/01/26/obama-and-arizonas-brewer-trade-words-on-airport-tarmac/
I’m confused – which one was the constitutional scholar, Brewer or Obama?
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:13 amWhen you sit back and think about it, it’s quite remarkable that someone would want the feds to be able to prevent states from dealing with crimes. That’s a lot of power. If they merely wanted to prosecute that crime themselves, it would be different, but wanting to find a twisted way to make it impossible to enforce laws is far beyond that.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:14 amThe health care decision will strictly political… reminders of Bush v Gore…
tye (122e60) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:20 amNYTimes questions the diversity of law schools
Neo (d1c681) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:22 am_________________________________________________
I will boldly predict a 5-4 decision overturning ObamaCare
When that was how narrow the vote was several years ago in the ruling over whether the Boy Scouts of America could have bylaws that forbid homosexuals from being troop masters, I knew right then and there just how precarious basic sanity and fundamental wisdom could be on the Supreme Court.
If debacles like an Al Gore or a John Kerry had been put into the White House during the past 20 or so years, then it is a given that a Supreme Court in such an alternative reality truly would have happily claimed: “If it’s good enough for the Catholic church, it’s good enough for anyone else, Boy Scouts included!”
As for Obamacare? Oh, hell, justices in such a parallel universe would come out with a ruling that says “the mandate for insurance not only is constitutional, it doesn’t go far enough! Besides, the US Constitution is a dusty relic that’s overly restrictive and increasingly irrelevant.”
The decision is here
I’m guessing that this section of the ruling will strike many on the left, including justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (regardless whether she had recused herself or not), as a matter of “oh, how sad and disturbing! But our big hearts, great compassion and wonderful sophistication must take priority over even that which cannot be ‘underestimated’!”
Mark (d5d5cf) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:24 amYou sound so confident.
Equal protection, you mean? Gore can’t just have some districts recounted in a way that is not proportional to other districts in an incredibly close contest? I mean, he can’t cheat? So sorry.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:27 amI will be surprised — not unhappy, but surprised — if the SCOTUS overturns the whole statute.
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:28 amThe health care decision will strictly political… reminders of Bush v Gore
Comment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 8:20 am
— tye’s comment is strictly ad hom . . . reminders of Dumb v Dumberer
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:33 amThis will be spun as the AZ law is 75% unconstitutional.
“tye” has read and is following the recommendations of Tomasky’s screed about ObamaCare.
JD (318f81) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:38 amWickard was a strictly political decision. But you’d fight tooth and nail against any attempt to reverse it.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:42 amThe Living Constitution is inherently political, with the weight of decisions placed on the opinions of the individual justices as opposed to the texts handed down to us from the past.
Couple that with the modern progressive groupthink, where racial, socioeconomic, and gender differences are forced into blocs that must be represented in the high court superlegislature, with equality before the law applied to groups and NOT to individuals.
These wrong-headed views must be fought everywhere they are found. It’s WE THE PEOPLE, not WE THE PEOPLES. What was written is still relevant.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:42 am13- two judges who should have recused themselves did not. That whole decision stunk. Anyway… I get the impression that Scalia (R) may coax others into voting against the bill. See: Bush v Gore
tye (122e60) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:46 am76 pages–going to take a bit of time to read and digest that before it’s possible to say anything intelligent about it.
It may well be even worse when reading the Obamacare opinion–unless the Justices unanimously throw it out, and that ain’t gonna happen.
One thing for sure–in my legal practice days I rarely saw any newspaper reporter or columnist get anything correct about any legal proceeding that I was familiar with.
Our host’s experience may vary from that. But that’s the conclusion I reached.
Comanche Voter (dc4fc0) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:46 amReally? If someone is “removable” doesn’t that mean they are here ILLEGALLY? And isn’t something illegal a CRIME? Or am I just a confused non-lawyer type?
YourLilSis (1cd43c) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:55 amtye, your understanding of Supreme Court practice, and Bush v. Gore matches that of your understanding of recent history in general. Clueless.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:55 amStill not sure when [the Obamacare] opinion will come down.
SCOTUSblog reported on their liveblog that “The Court will sit again on Thursday to announce the rest of the opinions,” which would include the Obamacare opinion.
Robin Munn (8032d9) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:56 amYourLilSis, there is a difference between an alien being removable and committing the crime of reentering the US after being deported. Just being removable is indeed, by itself, not a crime.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:57 amSo pass a law making it a crime.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:02 am•One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
— Being in the country illegally really IS crime enough. ICE is still allowed (under federal law) to raid a business, arrest all of the illegals working there, and deport them. The only place where working should be a crime is in the pea brains of the Occupy movement.
•One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
— This is one of the provisions that, of course, had the libs all in a tizzy; the “how do you determine ‘probable cause’ unless you’re racially profiling?” argument. I dunno. Seems to me perfectly reasonable to allow state and local officers to assist the Feds in detaining illegals.
•And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.”
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:04 am— Can you say “overstepping the bounds of your authority”?
two judges who should have recused themselves did not.
— Which two “judges” should have recused themselves in Bush v Gore, genius?
That whole decision stunk.
— The depth and subtlety contained in your level of discourse woweth us.
Anyway… I get the impression that Scalia (R) may coax others into voting against the bill. See: Bush v Gore
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:19 am— “He coaxies us, my precious. The fat, wicked Catholic! He coaxies us . . .”
Amph is right.
Either it’s a living constitution, in which case it’s OK to be political, or it’s not, in which case the conservatives should be winning the vast majority of these controversies anyway.
I guess it’s another of these having and eating cake situations, where it’s OK to be a liberal and support a politicized court that sees a living constitution and pushed ever leftward for a commerce clause that vetoes the entire concept of federalism and even constitutionalism, but any deviation from this recipe is ‘hypocrisy’.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:26 amComment by MyOpinion — 6/25/2012 @ 8:08 am
Though the Supremes might not have allowed AZ to punish Illegal Aliens for the crime of working without papers, they have previously upheld AZ’s right to punish employers for hiring IA’s.
It will be interesting to see what the reaction from the Left will be in a future administration that moves against “Sanctuary Cities/States” for interfering/pre-empting Federal Immigration Law/Policy?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:27 amAw, Hell, we know what their reaction will be, they’ll be twisted into a pretzel by the knot in their knickers.
Rush is reporting that Citizens United was reaffirmed 5/4.
ropelight (3c49d0) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:30 amWhy does Ruth Bader Ginsburg always forget that she stuck a dinner napkin in her robe when they take pictures?
Joe Miller (00407a) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:37 am22- your understanding of that case matches the right wing narrative of that case. Talking points are handy.
tye (122e60) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:50 amAs I noted the other day, the instances in which tye will actually engage in substantive debate are very rare, indeed.
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:55 amIcy – he is only in search of honest and real debate.
JD (318f81) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:01 amYes, he seeks it out and then destructively trolls it into oblivion.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:03 amTye, Bush v Gore was 7-2 that the count as it was being conducted was unconstitutional. Do you even know that? That is not a talking point – but a fact
KirkH (abb493) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:10 amI predict at least 6-3 to overturn. My reasoning is that Kagan will initially vote to uphold but then, seeing that the 5-member majority will overturn it, will change her vote to try and burnish her image as not just another liberal partisan hack on the Court.
Tom Fitzpatrick (0340e5) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:10 amKirk, if he criticized it accurately there would be fewer people responding to his bait.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:11 am“The fat one, he knows; he KNOWS! He wants to takes it away from us, precious — takes it away our mandate. Stupid, fat Catholic! He talksies to the others. He tries to con•vince them. Stupid, evil, fat Catholic!”
tye-dyed sock (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:12 amDustin, people don’t respond to trolls, enablers do.
ropelight (3c49d0) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:18 amNo, it matches the reality. Quick question: how many justices held that the recount ordered by the Florida court was unconstitutional?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:20 amConsidering that the only reason she’s sitting on the case in the first place is that she lied about her involvement in the planning of the legislation, that would be rich of her, but typical.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:22 amKagan will initially vote to uphold but then, seeing that the 5-member majority will overturn it, will change her vote to try and burnish her image as not just another liberal partisan hack on the Court.
Never.
JD (318f81) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:28 amYeah, JD, its a silly idea to think that any of the liberal four judges will vote to overturn any part of the PPACA. None of them has ever expressed any view that the commerce clause has boundaries.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:41 amI need this whole obamacare statute repealed yesterday if I’m to have any respect at all for this stupid country
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/25/2012 @ 10:56 amKagan will vote according to Valerie Jarrett’s instructions, or else.
ropelight (3c49d0) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:00 amMy equally bold, but unhappy prediction: 6-3 for upholding the law. I figure Roberts, seeing that the vote is 5-4 to uphold, will change his vote from overturn to uphold and he’ll write a very narrow decision.
I’ve nothing against the requirement to buy insurance per se (it works very well in Switzerland). It’s just that I think those opposing the law have the better constitutional argument.
Pigilito (9208f3) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:01 amThe really funny thing about Bush v Gore is that the count that Gore wanted would have increased Bush’s lead.
But the liberal attack on Bush v Gore is really about the electoral college, which they wanted the Court to overturn or something. As if the EC tie-breaking method was an accident.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:02 amKagan will vote according to Valerie Jarrett’s instructions, or else she sleeps on the couch.
FIFY.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:03 amThis ruling was an abomination. It vitiates the Tenth Amendment. If Arizona cannot protect its borders, it can protect itself against nothing.
The Rule of Man at its zenith. More to come. Where the he** was Roberts?
Ed from SFV (68921e) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:06 amSo, the federal Executive can choose to ignore federal law and direct his minions to assist illegal immigrants, and this choice — in contravention to Congress’ deliberative judgement — is binding on the states.
What this shows is that Federalism is still dead; and maybe the separation of powers.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:07 amRope–The lovely and talented Ms. Valerie Jarrett is also likely the one who is being protected by the F&F executive privilege play. She’s at the center of this administration and has been running the show and making decisions from before day one.
elissa (e06d3a) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:09 amA touch of the gloat,
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/noted-constitutional-law-professor-wrong-about-arizona-immigration-law-too-video/
narciso (8bfa44) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:10 amYou fall for the fallacy of static analysis. You assume that the votes that existed at the time the count was stopped are the same votes that would have been counted had it proceeded. You assume that the reason Gore wanted a recount was in case he actually received more votes, and a recount might discover that truth. That’s not the case. The purpose of the recount he sought was to give the Democrats another chance to manipulate the votes, especially once they knew how many were needed for a victory; had the count proceeded I have little doubt that Gore would have won.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:21 amHuh? Care to explain this? What EC tie-breaking? And in what way was the EC ever before the Court?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:23 amA way forward, however, for Arizona: they can arrest people for driving without a license. They can require legal residence to obtain a license. Failure to prove (or appear later in court to provide proof) legal residence could be grounds for revoking an issued license.
Sure, this could be attacked in an as-applied suit, but that will take a couple of years and by then the Supreme Court might be much different.
Of course, Romney has to win.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:24 amThey could also make the penalty for use of a fraudulent document to access government services very severe and still not trip over the 8th-A.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:29 amThe Electoral College almost never contradicts the popular vote. Only when the popular vote is very close does the EC choose the victor, and it does so by weighing the votes of STATES as well. This is a direct result of the Connecticut Compromise that gave all states equal representation in the Senate. In a close Presidential election, the candidate with the wider support (most states won) has a small advantage in the EC. This is not an accident.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:29 amThe purpose of the recount he sought was to give the Democrats another chance to manipulate the votes, especially once they knew how many were needed for a victory; had the count proceeded I have little doubt that Gore would have won.
You are so cynical. The Democrats believe in fresh air and puppies; they’d never do things like that.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:35 amAnd in what way was the EC ever before the Court?
In the minds of every last liberal who trashes Bush v Gore, the root injustice was the EC count upsetting the popular vote. The Court was supposed to find whatever specious argument it could to cause the popular vote to be “respected.” It’s failure to do so was “political.”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:38 amIts
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:39 amAnd indeed he does. This week is the most powerful argument we’re going to get that Romney has to win. There’s plenty of reason to hold his feet to the fire when he does. I’m hardly going to be starting the Romney fan club. But we need Romney to win this election.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:39 amDustin–
I almost signed that Obama delenda est. I fully understand Cato’s repetitions of the original now.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:42 amOK, here’s my theory on what really happened:
1. Under the Bush administration ATF ran this Wide Receiver program, more or less responsibly, and when the cartels caught on to it the ATF shut it down.
2. A new administration comes in, and the Sinaloa cartel sees an opportunity. They bribe some middle-to-low-level ATF people to revive the program, but with none of the safeguards it had in its first incarnation.
3. Those bribed ATF people, whose motive is not at all political, have to convince their higher-ups. To this end they mislead the new political appointees about the nature of the previous operation. The new 0bama guys think, “Well, if this was an ongoing operation that the Bush people OK’d, then it should be OK; why do our own due diligence when we can rely on theirs? Besides, if it ever goes wrong we can just blame them.”
4. Some 0bama people who learned about this program may have had ideas that it could prove useful for various goals of theirs: undermining the 2nd amendment, destabilising Mexico and/or Honduras, etc. But there was no official plan and none of these ideas were widely discussed within the administration. Most were probably only marginally aware of it and it never occurred to them to pay it much attention.
5. The Mexican government (which had no idea this was going on) started reporting a spike in violence and in US-sourced weapons seized from criminals. Various of the usual suspects jumped on this opportunity to trash the 2nd amendment, either not knowing at the time about Gunwalker, or not connecting the dots. (e.g. the released ATF emails seem to show that the person who wrote them was not in on Gunwalker.)
6. Brian Terry’s death causes some ATF agents who know about the program to blow the whistle. Now all the dots start to come together, and some people who had either taken stupid public positions (mostly anti-2A) or who had some knowledge but ought to have had more, feel embarrassed and launch a cover-up.
7. From there things play out much as one would expect them to; cf Watergate.
The advantage of this scenario is that it explains everything we’ve seen without resorting to “outlandish” conspiracy theories; known human behaviour is enough to explain it.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:43 amDustin, I think the statement can be framed in a manner more acceptable to many by saying that “Obama has to lose”!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:44 amIf that is so, it’s only by coincidence.
Not true. The EC always chooses the victor, it’s just that the popular vote usually happens to fall out the same way.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:46 am“known human behaviour (sic)”…
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:47 amWell that explains the bureaucRATS, but simply ignores that Leftist Administration Officials fail the humanity test on so many levels.
The EC always chooses the victor…
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:48 amexcept when it is decided by the House of Representatives.
Not true. The EC always chooses the victor, it’s just that the popular vote usually happens to fall out the same way.
Now that’s weak. It is statistically
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:53 amimpossibleimprobable for the EC to contradict the popular vote unless 1) the popular vote is within about 1% or 2) the popular vote has been padded by one or more states (preventing which is the other reason we have the EC — padding your winning total doesn’t help).except when it is decided by the House of Representatives.
If you think Bush v Gore was political….
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:54 amthe 1800 and 1824 elections.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:56 amTrue
Dustin (330eed) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:00 pmBack on topic, Obama’s DHS (run by former Arizona governor Napolitano), has ordered that all immigration inquiries from Arizona be ignored.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:02 pmSo just lawlessness from DHS?
In what way does that contribute to their mission of security? Shouldn’t they be investigating Fast and Furious instead of shutting down law enforcement that disproportionately affects democrats?
Dustin (330eed) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:05 pmIt doesn’t, but this is the DHS that targeted pro lifers, and former military, while soldiers were being gunned down by Awlaki’s converts in Little Rock and Killeen,
narciso (8bfa44) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:09 pmUpon a more careful reading, they claim that they will respond “according to law”, but only when the individual has felony convictions. The response will be “felon” or “release.” The official policy is now to turn a blind eye towards all illegals except convicted felons.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:09 pmYou can put AZ’s 11 electoral votes in the red column now.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:11 pmThe key point seems to be this:
4. It was improper to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had anopportunity to construe it and without some showing that §2(B)’s enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. Pp. 19–24.
The stated problem to be avoiding is the possibility of detaining any person beyond the usual period while his immigration status is determined. Justice Kennedy held we have to see how state courts would rule on the application of the law.
The unstated problem with the law is detaining anyone whose status is determined to be illegal, but whom the president or ICE isn’t interested or even capable of picking up. The opinion totally ignores this question.
there are side effects to the law. If someone would only be released to ICE, they won’t bother to post bail, because it is better to be in a local jail, and the jails will fill up with non-legal U.S. residents, who if they were legal woujld be released from jail, while anyone who is a U.S. citizen or permament resident will be more likely to be released even if the cause for their arrest is much more serious. The law becomes much more: it’s not what you do, it’s who you are. Which is not good law. (ICE never takes anyone being held in state custody, so people could linger in jail for a long time. There may be some general policy that avoids this.)
Here is a quote form the decision:
….§2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. To take one example, a person might be stopped for jaywalking in Tucson and be unable to produce identification. The first sentence of §2(B) instructs officers to make a “reasonable” attempt to verify his immigration status with ICE if thereis reasonable suspicion that his presence in the United States is unlawful. The state courts may conclude that, unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state officers, it would not be reasonable to prolong the stop for the immigrationinquiry. See Reply Brief for Petitioners 12, n. 4 (“[Section2(B)] does not require the verification be completed duringthe stop or detention if that is not reasonable or practicable”); cf. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U. S. 93, 101 (2005) (finding no Fourth Amendment violation where questioning about immigration status did not prolong a stop).
To take another example, a person might be held pending release on a charge of driving under the influence ofalcohol. As this goes beyond a mere stop, the arrestee(unlike the jaywalker) would appear to be subject to the categorical requirement in the second sentence of §2(B)that “[a]ny person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before [he] is released.” State courts may read this as an instruction to initiate a status check every time someone is arrested, or in some subset of those cases, rather than as a command to hold the person until the check is complete no matter the circumstances. Even if the law is read as an instruction to complete a check while the person is in custody, moreover, it is not clear at this stage and on this record that the verification process would result in prolonged detention.
However the law is interpreted, if §2(B) only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision likely would survive pre-emption—at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives. There is no need in this case to address whether reasonable suspicion of illegal entry or another immigration crime would be a legitimate basis for prolonging a detention, or whether this too would be preempted by federal law. See, e.g., United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 589 (1948) (authority of state officers to make arrestsfor federal crimes is, absent federal statutory instruction, a matter of state law); Gonzales v. Peoria, 722 F. 2d 468, 475–476 (CA9 1983) (concluding that Arizona officers have authority to enforce the criminal provisions of federal immigration law), overruled on other grounds in Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F. 3d 1037 (CA9 1999).
The nature and timing of this case counsel caution inevaluating the validity of §2(B). The Federal Government has brought suit against a sovereign State to challenge the provision even before the law has gone into effect. There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a waythat creates a conflict with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277 (1915) (“So far as statutes fairly may be construed in such a way as to avoid doubtful constitutional questions they should be so construed; and it is to be presumed that state laws will be construed in that way by the state courts” (citation omitted)). As a result, the United States cannot prevail in its current challenge. See Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440, 446 (1960) (“To hold otherwise would be to ignore theteaching of this Court’s decisions which enjoin seeking out conflicts between state and federal regulation where none clearly exists”). This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law asinterpreted and applied after it goes into effect.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:31 pmThe EC always chooses the victor, it’s just that the popular vote usually happens to fall out the same way
If someone wins the Electoral Vote they almost always have also won the popular vote, but the reverse is not true.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:33 pmI will boldly predict a 5-4 decision overturning ObamaCare on narrow grounds, overturning the whole statute and not just the mandate. Still not sure when that opinion will come down.
The New York times said that Chief Justice Roberts always announces at the next to last session of the year that the next session will be the last day.
They announced today that the last day will be Thursday (it was thought they might have a session on Wednesday) so the decision will come down on Thirsday. It was very likely already it would be the last day.
They will overturn the individual mandate and maybe the Medicaid expansion (or say that raises questions)
If they overturn much of the law it will be on severability grounds. It will be interesting to read the opinions. How do they avoid judicial legislation?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:42 pmif someone wins the popular vote they almost always have also won the electoral vote.
how is that statement not true?
razor419 (239cef) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:47 pmMilhouse @64 — one of the best possible explanations I’ve ever read, right down to Obama’s people trusting Bush’s people to have done the due diligence correctly. I don’t see anything there that rates an Executive Privilege, either; it’s the cover-up that gets you. Again.
htom (412a17) — 6/25/2012 @ 12:58 pmComment by Amphipolis — 6/25/2012 @ 8:03 am
Am I right that the heart of SB1070, Arizona’s requirement that state and local law enforcement check immigration status, was upheld 8-0?
They can check, but they can’t keep anyone detained any extra time when doing so, and may have to do so after the person is released, and the Supreme Court will wait to see how state courts rule on how this carried out before doing any more.
The federal scheme thus leaves room for a policy requiring state officials to contact ICE as a routine matter
The court held that some things the state did, like criminalizing illegal presence in the United Sttes they can’t do.
As I said, the problem is what happens when presence of someone in the United States is unlawful. The court basically said the constitution and the law doesn’t prohibit states from trying to find that out. They just can’t hold people while they are trying to find that out. They have no power to detain not given to them by the U.S. Attorney General. The problem happens when someone would otherwise be released on bail. They normnally can’t hold anyone for mor than 3 days pending ICE pickup. But if someone is beinbg held on charges the 33 days don’t kick in yet. I cvan imagine the corruption and the paying at least for inside information aas to what days it is safe to post bail. ICE normally doesn’t go out of its wway to arrest people. The state of Arizoina could even deliver prisoners to ICE’s doorstep. The state can make a lot of trouble for Obama’s policy of discretion, because it would make it more blatant. Or otherwise aliens in Arizona would placed in removal proceedings but not in New Mexico.
Anyway the court held other challenges to teh law will have to wait till they see what catually happens.
Justice Scalia said basically that a state had independent power to restrict immigration, which is maybe true. Although here Arizona did not make its own law but just piggybacked on federal law.
This could be a way to solve this political problems. Let states pursue their own policies, at least let the federal government give them some leeway, in both directions. To admit others the federal government had not, and maybe to exclude from their state some.
BTW, Justice Scalia notes it never was contemplated you’d have this all purpose prohibition of immigration where there was no good cause.
Many of the 17th-, 18th-, and 19th-century commentators maintained that states should exclude foreigners only for good reason. Pufendorf, for example, maintained that states are generally expected to grant “permanent settlement to strangers who have been driven from their former home,” though acknowledging that, when faced with the prospect of mass immigration, “every state may decide after its owncustom what privilege should be granted in such a situation.” 2 Of the Law of Nature and Nations, bk. III, ch. III, §10, p. 366 (C. Oldfather & W. Oldfather eds. 1934). See generally Cleveland, Powers Inherent in Sovereignty: Indians, Aliens, Territories, and the Nineteenth Century Origins of Plenary Power over Foreign Affairs, 81 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 83–87(2002). But the authority to exclude was universally accepted as inherent in sovereignty, whatever prudential limitations there might beon its exercise.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:03 pmComment by razor419 — 6/25/2012 @ 12:47 pm
if someone wins the popular vote they almost always have also won the electoral vote.
how is that statement not true?
It’s truem and most possible excceptions involve vote fraud. 1876, 1884, 1888, 1960.
2000 was botched voting in Florida.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:04 pmBut the reverse is not true. If candidcates were to try only to win the popular vote, they might not win the Electoral vote.
But if a candidate tries and succeeds in winning the Electoral Vote, he will almost certainly also have won the Popular vote.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:06 pm64. Comment by Milhouse — 6/25/2012 @ 11:43 am
OK, here’s my theory on what really happened:
1. Under the Bush administration ATF ran this Wide Receiver program, more or less responsibly, and when the cartels caught on to it the ATF shut it down.
– Completely wrong. Over the years the cartel(s) bribed eople in the ATF to let guns be exported. Sometimes this was done to protect informants. These operations were usually eventaully stopped. They never worked. They never resulted in prosecutions. They never were run responsibly. ATF always made “mistakes” For instance in Wide Receiver, the cartel had inside information on when the border would be watched and the technical surveillanmce did not weork – intentionally.
2. A new administration comes in, and the Sinaloa cartel sees an opportunity. They bribe some middle-to-low-level ATF people to revive the program, but with none of the safeguards it had in its first incarnation.
Maybe this time some higher up people were in on the bribe, and it was more falalcious than usual.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:11 pm27- Scalia for one.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20040401.html
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:13 pmThere has also been analysis of whether or not several Justices had a conflict of interest that should have forced them to recuse themselves from the decision. On several occasions, William Rehnquist had expressed interest in retiring under a Republican administration; one study found that press reports “are equivocal on whether facts existed that would have created a conflict of interest” for Rehnquist.
At an election night party, Sandra Day O’Connor became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:17 pmYes, but that leaves out Dennis Burke’s Napolitano’s
narciso (8bfa44) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:18 pmfactotum, going back 20 years, as the point person in Phoenix’s US Atty office.
48-Which is why Gore was actually pulling closer before the partisan court ruling pulled the plug on it…
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:23 pm82:htom, it’s the coverup, along with the media outing of the 90% lie, that makes it unlikely that the no-conspiracy chain of events is true.
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:24 pmMiller v Alabama
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf
Held: The Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. Pp. 6−27
Quotes another court decision: And because a child’s character is not as “well formed” as an adult’s, his traits are “less fixed” and his actions are less likely to be “evidence of irretrievabl[e] deprav[ity].
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.
I can’t find the concurring and dissenting opinions.
Here is a blog post about this:
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/
Although initial press coverage — for example, from the AP, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS radio — stated that the Court had ruled out LWOP for juvenile killers, that is incorrect. The Court held no more than that LWOP [Life With Out Parole] cannot automatically be imposed, and that sentencing in such cases must henceforth allow introduction of mitigating evidence particular to each defendant. In other words, the Court today did to juvenile LWOP what it did in the Woodson case in 1976 to capital punishment for adults: It held that rules automatically imposing the harshest penalty are inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment.
It is thus worth remembering that, in the 36 years since Woodson, and in the era of discretionary death penalty sentencing, there have been 1298 executions in the United States.
Thus, reports of the end of juvenile LWOP as a result of today’s ruling are at best premature, and almost certainly wrong.
The question is, though, what haoppens now to old cases?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:26 pm90: and why the media recounts afterwards still showed Bush winning – no point in manipulating the vote/finding more boxes of ballots, etc at that point.
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:28 pm2008 was botched voting everywhere.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:29 pmSo, tye, what would you do with a justice who attended a fundraiser for a SC litigant’s legal fees?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:31 pmBy authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.
Comment by YourLilSis — 6/25/2012 @ 8:55 am
Really? If someone is “removable” doesn’t that mean they are here ILLEGALLY? And isn’t something illegal a CRIME?
No. It may be illegal, for instance, not to pay child support, but not a crime, unless this has been criminalized. But you could find other examples.
Being here illegally is by and large a civil offense.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:31 pm95-what would you do in the cases that I mentioned.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:33 pmThe question is, though, what happens now to old cases?
In cases where the penalty was applied without a hearing as to mitigation, there must be a hearing as to mitigation.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:34 pmtye, again you demonstrate that you confuse fantasy with actual history.
SPQR (348739) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:35 pm97, nothing as they don’t rise to the same level. Being “disappointed” in an outcome isn’t the same as pimping for a group advocating an outcome. If SDoC had lent her name to raise money for recount observers, that would be a problem. But (hearsay) allegedly saying she was disappointed isn’t like Kagan cheering Obamacare’s passage.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:38 pmGreat analysis spqr. You really hammered me with that uh… counter-argument.
You should be Romney’s debate coach. Every time Obama says something Romney will, under your direction, say that that is wrong but not mention why. Folks like you will be so impressed!
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:40 pm100- because justice corruption is okay when it benefits you. Gross.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:41 pmTitle 8 Section 1325 U.S. Code, “Improper Entry by Alien.”
Federal misdemeanor for the first offense punishably by $250 fine and up to 6 months in prison, repeat offense is a felony.
Overstay of visa is civil; but illegally crossing the border is criminal. That includes parents illegally forcing their children across a border.
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:43 pmComment by Milhouse — 6/25/2012 @ 11:43 am
3. Those bribed ATF people, whose motive is not at all political, have to convince their higher-ups. To this end they mislead the new political appointees about the nature of the previous operation. The new 0bama guys think, “Well, if this was an ongoing operation that the Bush people OK’d, then it should be OK; why do our own due diligence when we can rely on theirs? Besides, if it ever goes wrong we can just blame them.”
This is a little bit too thought out, but it could be yes, new inexperienced political appointees might be sold on something that the previous people knew was no good.
They’d still have a lot of blame for not consulting the prior administration – for setting up a system where there was no institutional memory.
4. Some 0bama people who learned about this program may have had ideas that it could prove useful for various goals of theirs: undermining the 2nd amendment, destabilising Mexico and/or Honduras, etc. But there was no official plan and none of these ideas were widely discussed within the administration. Most were probably only marginally aware of it and it never occurred to them to pay it much attention.
It is very possible, if this happened like that, an additional selling point of the corrupt people was that guns going into Mexico was a serious problem.
But this argument here actually would first be made by bribed Mexican officials. It would be very good for them. It would be argued that if U.S. has complaints against Mexico, about drugs, say, Mexico has complaints against the United States. It would be a defense of not doing anything about narcotics. Or immigrant smuggling.
5. The Mexican government (which had no idea this was going on) started reporting a spike in violence and in US-sourced weapons seized from criminals. Various of the usual suspects jumped on this opportunity to trash the 2nd amendment, either not knowing at the time about Gunwalker, or not connecting the dots. (e.g. the released ATF emails seem to show that the person who wrote them was not in on Gunwalker.)
It would somehow be overlooked that these were the very guns they were letting straw buyers pruchase.
It isn’t necessarily that the person didn’t know, but either he didn’t know or was part of the corruption.
6. Brian Terry’s death causes some ATF agents who know about the program to blow the whistle. Now all the dots start to come together, and some people who had either taken stupid public positions (mostly anti-2A) or who had some knowledge but ought to have had more, feel embarrassed and launch a cover-up.
The death of Brian Terry caused people to lose some of their caution.
It is not just public positions. It’s incomptence at best.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:45 pmtye, your claims are simply fabrications. Bush v Gore held 7 to 2 that the Gore campaign’s scheme of recounting only favorable counties was unconstitutional. He could not win Florida without that as post election counts conducted by NYT showed.
Why do you make so many false claims, tye? Ignorance or dishonesty?
SPQR (348739) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:46 pmThe 5-4 decision held that there was no possibility of recounting in a constitutionally valid way before the Dec. 12th deadline. This was after the court had halted recounts just three days prior. Futhermore, a large number of states missed this deadline for certification anyway without repercussions. 5-4 with two if not three justices who shouldn’t have heard the case to begin with.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:52 pmfalse, tye. More of your fantasies. Why do you wish to recreate 12 year old fantasies?
SPQR (348739) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:55 pmThe deadline for certification is a Florida law thing, tye. Other states didn’t have to follow it.
Extending the deadline for certification is one of many ways in which Florida was trying to change the rules set down before the election mid-course so as to change the outcome.
Which is wrong, of course.
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:56 pm107- you should read the case. You are truly showing your complete ignorance here. Yes part of the decision held that the way they were recounting wasn’t constitutional. What I just posted, however, is completely true and you are making yourself look very uninformed to those who know anything about the case.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 1:59 pm102 – So, you don’t have anything to say to support your assertions. You’re just wanking in public.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:00 pmI did read the case. You are making up stuff long ago debunked.
SPQR (348739) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:01 pm108 extending the deadline to be sure of the actual outcome of the democratic process was correct
That was wrong? Democracy is wrong? Following the will of the people is wrong? Go back to North Korea…. your system of government is unwelcome here.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:02 pmVery very brief description of new Congressional distructs and Democratic primaries in Brooklyn tomorrow.
It turns out only maybe a third of the portion of Weiner’s old district in Brooklyn is in the new 8th. I thought it was more,. some went to the Staten Island district, some went to Nadler – in exchange maybe for what went to the S.I. district anmd Brighton Beach and the corridor to Coney Island and western Coney Island) some went to
the other black district, and only the rest went to the new 8th replacing Towns’ 10th.
The 8th is about 52.9 percent black, 22.4 percent white, 18 percent Hispanic, 4.8 prcent Asian, and the other 1.9 percent other. All of Coney Island is in it – what used to be in Nadler’s district and what used to be in Weiner’s but only the easternmost portions of Sheepshead Bay, but it includes Mill Basin and Marine Park. Nadler lost blacks in Coney Island and the Marboro Houses but he gained some in Harlem. Rangel’s district now has more Hosoanics than blacks.
In general, the non-black districts retain almost exactly the same racial proportions they had befire although territory has been somewhat swapped around, while the black districts in Brooklyn have about 5% fewer blacks and 5% more whites than they had before.
http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2012/06/congressional-primer/
http://www.bensonhurstbean.com/2012/06/congressional-primer/
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:04 pmWhich part, specifically?
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:05 pm108–
And at the same time, Florida counties refused to extend the military ballot deadlines even though Florida had signed a consent decree requiring them to do so. Gore’s folks kept bringing up the invalidated statute, hoping clueless county election boards would cave. Many did.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:06 pmAmongst the many things tye doesn’t know:
Florida has a long history of illegal voting, illegal vote manipulation, voter fraud, and so forth.
The Florida law that places a deadline for certification of the election is one check upon that process. Voting with paper ballots means it takes time to fabricate votes and make them difficult to throw out and a limit on that time means it is harder to ‘find’ boxes of ‘lost’ ballots and get a friendly vote-cheating judge to certify them. As well as a thousand other fraudulent activities.
So yes, extending the deadline actually makes the vote LESS accurate because it allows for more cheating. Really. That’s why they made that law.
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:06 pm116- you mean “losing” votes from minority precincts? No, I knew that.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:11 pm117- So now you’re in favor of the deadline. Excellent!
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:13 pmToo many people here read only right-wing fantasy stories instead of actual news. It is no wonder that unbiased sources in popular media seem skewed when all you’re reading is this fake propaganda bullspit.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:14 pmI can’t reason with stupid and stubborn.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:14 pmHow so?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:18 pmYes, exactly. The more they counted, the more Bush’s margin dwindled; had they kept counting, I have no doubt that this process would continue, until they managed to find a majority for Gore. But because the count was stopped, the ballots remained as they were at that moment, with a small Bush majority.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:23 pm121 If your no-conspiracy chain of events is true why bother with Executive Privilege? Just hang the illegal underlings out to dry. That’s standard operating procedure for the Chicago Gang – it’s so common we have an entire string of Obama under the bus jokes – and yet they aren’t doing it this time.
Why start with the 90% lie before Fast and furious actually starts? Wouldn’t it have to come later, after knowledge of the illegal underlings actions starts percolating up and then one jumps on the opportunity? The timing is wrong.
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:24 pmMexican drug cartels are awash with money, they certainly don’t want or need to run the risks of official entanglements with US law enforcement agencies to get guns. And, they don’t need to pay US retail prices, plus hefty transportation and profit markups for straw buyers and traffickers.
If Mexican drug cartels want AK-47s they can make a few phone calls and the guns are delivered COD from anywhere in the world. Money talks and wholesale gun dealers have very big ears. They deliver on-time and according to specifications or they’re out of business.
It’s only the Obama Administration that needs guns conveniently left at crime scenes to be traced back to US gun shops. (Who keeps employees on the payroll who leave guns behind when they might be imperative to make good an escape, or come in handy tomorrow?)
Fast-n-Furious had but one object: to manufacture evidence US guns were being used in Mexican crimes so Obama, Holder, and Hillary could justify a crackdown on 2nd Amendment rights.
ropelight (3c49d0) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:25 pm==Too many people here read only right-wing fantasy stories instead of actual news. It is no wonder that unbiased sources in popular media seem skewed when all you’re reading is this fake propaganda bullspit==
Please list examples of five unbiased media sources that you believe people may be missing. Also, what is your basis for claiming that people who comment here read only “right wing fantasy stories”, yet in the very same sentence say that other media (that we’re apparently also reading) seems “skewed” to us because we only read blah blag blah?
elissa (e06d3a) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:29 pmAbout Fast and Furious I went back to this thread
https://patterico.com/2012/06/20/breaking-house-panel-approves-holder-contempt-resolution/comment-page-8/#comment-1006197
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:30 pmIt’s the work of a moment to press a fingernail against a piece of chad and detach it, turning a Bush vote into an invalid overvote. Every time they handled those votes they altered them. What do you think they were planning to do when they took the ballots into that closed room and locked the observers out? Why do you think the R observers “rioted”?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:32 pmtye, the NYT published the studies of the Florida ballots post election that showed that Bush won with any fair recount consistent with the opinion of the 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court. Not right wing blogs.
Is that how you explain away the fact that history does not match your fantasies, tye? That its all right wingers conspiring to deny your fantasies their own life?
You have problems grasping reality, tye.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:35 pmFor the same reason that Watergate became what it was. Nixon had no knowledge of the break-in when it happened, or when he publicly denied it — but he learned about it soon after, and instead of embarrassing himself by retracting his denial, he decided to double down and kept denying it, each time making it harder to stop denying it.
Holder may not have initially known all about F&F (though it was probably mentioned in passing and he just didn’t pay it any attention), but he flat-out denied it and then kept on denying it long after he must have known.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:37 pmThis is like something from Bizarro World. The “popular media” have a long record showing that they’re anything but “unbiased”. Just for one random but blatant example, have you forgotten Ra<sup>th</sup>ergate?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:39 pmComment by Milhouse — 6/25/2012 @ 2:37 pm
Nixon had no knowledge of the break-in when it happened, or when he publicly denied it — but he learned about it soon after, and instead of embarrassing himself by retracting his denial, he decided to double down and kept denying it, each time making it harder to stop denying it.
Nixon attempted to cover up the connection to the Committee to re-Elect the President , which was lready knowm – by July 6 he was no longer interested in a coverup. John Dean did the whole thing on his own. See the obituary of Jack Caulfield:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/jack-caulfield-bearer-of-a-watergate-message-dies-at-83.html?pagewanted=all
I mean actually read it.
Holder may not have initially known all about F&F (though it was probably mentioned in passing and he just didn’t pay it any attention), but he flat-out denied it and then kept on denying it long after he must have known.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:44 pmHolder there – something more is involved.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:44 pmMaybe totallky different scandals involving some of the same people.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:44 pmMajor networks Elissa. Save faux news.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:51 pm@ Tye,
<
Um, would that include NBC and Andrea Mitchell editing Romney’s speech???
Or, would that be the other NBC that twice edited George Zimmerman tapes???
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:55 pm…or perhaps CBS news for their distorted report on Bush and the National Guard???
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:57 pmMSNBC that deceptively edited a video of Rmney … or CBS that presented stories that lied about George W. Bush based on a forged memo …
you really need to grow up, tye. Your fantasy life is not going to aid you in escaping your parents’ basement.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 2:58 pmI always wondered if the Manchurian Candidate McLame would make an appearance. I think he is a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, too.,
Sydney_Minnesota (0c467f) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:04 pm129- Like I said, standard operating procedure.
The Chicago Gang isn’t like Nixon. They know they can flip-flop without any media penalty. There’s no reason for them not to just say, “Whoops, we made a mistake, that previous statement is inoperative, here’s a new one, here’s the guilty party.” They’ve done it before. It’s their modus operandi. Your chain of causality doesn’t fit with their known behavior in other circumstances.
And it does fit with Obama’s ‘working on gun control under the radar’ comment to the Brady Campaign.
It’s a nice enough fantasy, but it just doesn’t fit with too much other stuff.
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:07 pmLet’s not forget ABC news and their incorrect claims about George Zimmerman’s injuries.
That pretty much covers major networks, Tye.
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:09 pmI am quite certain that the vast majority of “regular” commenters and lurkers on this site read a much greater variety and breadth of blogs, newspapers, books, white papers, and court cases than our friend tye does.
elissa (e06d3a) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:11 pmelissa, pretty much guaranteed.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:12 pmWhy could he not have enacted health care reform in D.C.? It would provide a small scale experiment as to how it would work, and it would not be subject to this kind of constitutional challenge.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:17 pm141- that statement is belied by the views that spqr is posting.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:32 pmSo one story that you disagree with that came out several years ago on one major network balances the daily lies that faux news airs? Got it.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:34 pmThere was a little girl in my girl scout troop that was kind of slow and socially awkward and whom our parents always told us we should try to be extra nice to. But it was hard sometimes because she said and did embarrassing things that were difficult to ignore and it just drove us crazy.
elissa (e06d3a) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:44 pmtye, your claim of “daily lies” of Fox News is just more of your fabrications. But more importantly, none of the historical fact I’m referencing comes from Fox News. Grow up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:46 pmOr Dateline with GM, or Food Lion with ABC,
narciso (8bfa44) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:47 pm4-3, 2 recusing. All overturned. Snide remark by someone about “we’ve read the whole thing.”
htom (412a17) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:52 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/25/Newsroom-falsehood
narciso (8bfa44) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:52 pmEvery example cited so far is not “stories we disagree with” but deliberate fraud. FOX News sometimes gets stories wrong, but I’m not aware of a single instance of them making anything up.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:53 pmRa^th^ergate was a deliberate attempt to steal an election.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:54 pm147- just because you find it unpleasant doesn’t make it untrue. Fox lies. Daily.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:57 pmOr go back all the way to the Tet Offensive, and the way Walter Cronkite and his accomplices in the MSM knowingly portrayed a decisive victory as a defeat, thus turning it into one and losing the war. The North Vietnamese later admitted that after Tet they were ready to give up, until they saw how the American MSM had misreported it, and the effect that was having on American morale.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:58 pm152- too bad it didn’t work as well as the rethug attempt which actually worked
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:59 pmOK. What lies did it tell yesterday? Or, if that’s too soon, how about last Monday?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 3:59 pmSo you wish Rather’s forgery had worked?! And you have the hide to talk about lies!
What would that be? If you’re referring to the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, I believe the reward for proving them to have lied is still available, and still unclaimed.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:02 pmSometimes I wonder whatever happened to that poor little friend from Girl Scouts when she grew up. For instance did she hook up with someone else “like her” and reproduce?
elissa (e06d3a) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:05 pmProve it! Show that Fox News lies daily. Facts not fantasy.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:09 pmGetting back to the main point of the thread, Kennedy really botched the decision, without the other component parts of 1070, and the at least
narciso (8bfa44) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:13 pmpassive cooperation of DHS, it can’t work.
Gore would have won only with a selective recount, which is what he tried to get.
he may have had more people who intended to vote for him in Florida but lost because of people who voted for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach County on the butterfly ballot (George W. Bush was listed first because the Governor of Florida was a Republican (also named Bush by the way, his brother) and it was harder to make that mistake with the first name than with the third) and because of people in Jacksonville who followed the exhortation of Democratic Party campaigners who told people to vote on every page – but there were two pages of presidential candidates.
There were some other overvotes – even write-ins where people after first choosing write in, wrote in Al Gore. But overvotes were not legal votes and couldn’t be counted.
But Bush would have won a recount conducted according to the rules. The Gore people were hoping to stop and freeze the recount at a point where Al Gore was ahead.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:15 pmtye, you are getting more and more bizarre. No one is citing Fox News in this thread. No one mentioned Fox News before you.
Are you drunk?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:19 pmComment by Milhouse — 6/25/2012 @ 3:54 pm
Ra^th^ergate was a deliberate attempt to steal an election.
It was too pathetic for that. If true, it really amounted to nothing (except to enable people to say Bush was a liar, or sort of draft dodger – more useful in scandalmongering than in an election.
It might be because it was so trivial, because it wasn’t damning, that Dan Rather continued to believe it.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:19 pmNo, he would have won no matter what recount was used, because the counters would have made sure of it. You’re still labouring under the fallacy that the act of counting the votes doesn’t change them.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:21 pmComment by narciso — 6/25/2012 @ 4:13 pm
Kennedy really botched the decision, without the other component parts of 1070, and the at least
passive cooperation of DHS, it can’t work.
His job is only to decide whether or not the law is constitutional, not whether the law “works” He might take that approach toward the health care law as well.
NBC Nightly News reported that the Obama campaign is happy with decision, because it will motivate Hispanics to vote for him (Why Because people not being deported will depend on DHS not taking these cases given to them by Arizona) and Romney doesn’t like it What Romney said was something like that too much of the law was not upheld. Actually he may be unhappy that any of it was.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:23 pmYou don’t think he was in on the forgery?!
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:24 pmNBC didn’t say that, only that the Romney people don’t like the political falloutut and I think what Romney said.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:24 pmComment by Milhouse — 6/25/2012 @ 4:21 pm
No, he would have won no matter what recount was used, because the counters would have made sure of it. You’re still labouring under the fallacy that the act of counting the votes doesn’t change them.
That may have been what they wanted to do, but too many people were watching.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:26 pmTrue, but there is no obvious reason why the other provisions were struck down,
narciso (8bfa44) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:27 pmSince when did they let that stop them? The “riot” may have stopped them from outright wholesale tampering, but every time they counted there was chad on the floor, so votes were being altered. And we saw what they were capable of in the WA circus four years later.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:29 pmGood god spqr. Follow the thread. It is ridiculous how often you claim my comments don’t follow when they actually do. You embarrass yourself. Read all comments. It may take you longer to respond but at least you won’t look so stupid.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:32 pmToo many people here read only right-wing fantasy stories instead of actual news. It is no wonder that unbiased sources in popular media seem skewed when all you’re reading is this fake propaganda bullspit.
tye, while it is possible for a liberal to cocoon between the liberal media and leftist blogs, it is fundamentally impossible for a conservative to avoid liberal opinion. The society is awash in that cra p.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:34 pmWhy buy an AK in America?
On the world market, selective fire/fully automatic AK’s (aka machine guns) sell for $100-$150 (or less).
In a U.S. gunstore (where available), semi-auto AK’s (not a machine gun – one pull of the trigger equals one round fired) sell for between $600-$900.
Now, why would any Cartel waste considerable amounts of money (they might be awash in it, but that doesn’t mean they spend foolishly) buying inferior weapons when they have easy access to the world-wide arms black-market?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:34 pmOnly an American Leftist would deny this reality.
But then, Leftists are masters at denial, and projection.
(BTW, as an FFL, I think I have some credibility on this subject)
if i read all of tye’s comments i won’t look stupid…
i’ll BE stupid from the brain damage of trying to understand his idiocy.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:34 pmI can’t reason with stupid and stubborn.
But tye, you seem to specialize in stupid and stubborn.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:35 pmtye, I’m pretty confident that I’m not the one that looks stupid. Its using such erudite terms as “rethug” that indicates true stupidity.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:35 pmAD, that’s the flaw in the theory that any cartel bribed ATF for guns. They had access to cheaper guns that were more desirable through other clandestine channels than straw purchases through Texas gunstores.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:36 pmThe Arizona law “works” in one respect only: It makes it harder to follow a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy towards illegal immigrants.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:37 pmYes, SPQR, they must have also bribed ATF for access to those RPG’s and Korean hand-grenades that the Mexican Army recovered in some of those arms busts they made.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:38 pmGeorge W. Bush would have won recount according to Faux News aka PBS and we all know that PBS is a “right wing echo chamber”.
tye, its you who are stupid. Its you who reads biased news. And its you who makes shit up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:39 pmComment by narciso — 6/25/2012 @ 4:27 pm
True, but there is no obvious reason why the other provisions were struck down,
they were struck down because they ran counter to he federal immigration law scheme. Congress had refrained from criminalizing illegal immigration, and that was not an oversight. But it was within the scheme for states to notify the federal government of illegal immigrants.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:39 pm176- of course you are confident. Stupid people dont usually know or acknowledge that they are stupid.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:43 pmtye, you are lucky that you can’t die from irony poisoning.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:45 pmComment by AD-RtR/OS! — 6/25/2012 @ 4:34 pm
Now, why would any Cartel waste considerable amounts of money (they might be awash in it, but that doesn’t mean they spend foolishly) buying inferior weapons when they have easy access to the world-wide arms black-market?
But do they? Could they buy large quantities? Smuggle them in? Arizona is a whole lot closer to northern Mexico than is Colombia, and there may be fewer….police agencies to worry about. And they could be transported by truck rather than by air. From Arizona, they might know everybody is in their pocket.
And somebody found it worthwhile to do. The guns did in fact go to Mexico. All amateurs?
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:50 pmWith retorts like that one, tye, its going to be a long time before I worry about being thought dumber than you. A very long time.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:50 pmFinkelman, the cartels are arming themsevles with military small arms often smuggled in bulk from central america. They end up with military M16’s (in contrast to civilian AR15’s from US gun stores), military AK47’s ( in contrast to the semi-auto AK found in US gun stores ), and military explosives.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:53 pmAnd from Mexican Army warehouses as well,
narciso (8bfa44) — 6/25/2012 @ 4:55 pmhttp://proteinwisdom.com/?p=41295
Think it through: if you are an illegal and you haven’t committed a felony, the only recourse Arizona law enforcement has is to alert ICE. And the feds have already alerted AZ law enforcement that, unless the illegal in question has committed a felony, they aren’t interested in hearing from Arizona law enforcement. The crime of illegality is still illegal, but it is unenforceable, and therefore moot. Pre-empted.
What’s the bottom line? What’s the message? If there’s someone in your family, a neighbor, a fellow student, a trusted employee, who is illegally present in the United States and whom you don’t want to see deported…vote for Obama.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/25/2012 @ 5:02 pmThen why did they buy those guns? It’s not as if the ATF gave them the guns for free!
Milhouse (312124) — 6/25/2012 @ 5:03 pmComment by SPQR — 6/25/2012 @ 4:53 pm
Finkelman, the cartels are arming themsevles with military small arms often smuggled in bulk from central america. They end up with military M16′s (in contrast to civilian AR15′s from US gun stores), military AK47′s ( in contrast to the semi-auto AK found in US gun stores ), and military explosives.
Yes, I read that only 17% of their weapons come (came?) from the United States,
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/25/2012 @ 5:04 pmMilhouse, probably wanted the fancy guns to pimp out with gold inlays and pearl grips.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 5:15 pmThe SCOTUS has further enabled the highly selective enforcement of federal laws and made Americans less safe in the process.
Colonel Haiku (32d4f5) — 6/25/2012 @ 5:21 pmTye, tye, are you going to prove your statement about Fox News? Or are you just making it up?
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 6/25/2012 @ 5:25 pmhttp://foxnewslies.net/
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 5:35 pmtye, you’ve failed to tie any claim about Fox News to this thread’s discussion. But you have told us why you are so uninformed about current events.
You kept making stupid insinuations that what I was describing about the 2000 election was from Fox News or other “right wing” sources. So I showed you PBS – a well known hotbed of right wingers – with a story that said exactly what I did.
That’s what is so hilarious about your comments, tye, its not that you are stupid – you are – its that so much of what you “know” is false. Your comment about the stupid not knowing how stupid they are was wonderfully timed … to show your own projection.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 5:40 pmTye the very first story at the link you gave is incorrect and makes an assumption about the motives of a commentary show not Fox News. If you include commentary shows, then many of the “lies” come from liberals. You do know that a commentary show is not the same as a News show don’t you?
Also,even if you include commentary shows, the site doesn’t prove your statement that Fox News lies every day?
SPQR has proved your statements to be false with liberal news outlets, is your stake in this one of blind faith in that facts don’t matter, only the narrative?
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 6/25/2012 @ 5:52 pmTye, you embody what is wrong with the collective left: narrow minded, dishonest, and lacking the courage to actually consider, chew over, and critically think your way through an issue to your *own* conclusion – no matter where it might land. Instead, your go-to is to throw out red herrings, tell outright lies, and attempt to make the other person look inarticulate, unintelligent and buffoonish.
Unfortunately, you don’t see how that tactic backfires each and every time. I don’t mean to insult you, but you do understand what I’m saying, don’t you?
Dana (4eca6e) — 6/25/2012 @ 5:56 pmTanny-
tye wants attention in the “Look at meee, I’m not wearing any pants!” manner. He is neither interested in, nor apparently capable of, participating in a rational discussion on any important subject whatsoever. His games are tiresome and a big waste of time for everybody.
elissa (e06d3a) — 6/25/2012 @ 6:07 pmHeh! Since you guys are letting tye fill up this thread with nonsense, I’m gonna give him something to make his head explode.
6-3 to over turn the mandate ~
Roberts, Alitio, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia AND Sotomayer
5-4 to throw the whole enchilada out…
All the above except Sotomayer.
Tye can start screaming RINO now…(or is that neocon? I get so confused with all the namecalling from the left(maybe it’s racist??))
flicka47 (cf7980) — 6/25/2012 @ 6:07 pmHere’s the deal, tye. No one thinks you are a credible commentator. Not even Milhouse, and he argues with me about everything.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 6:20 pmMaybe “tye” – as an act of good faith LOLOLOLOLoLOLOLwhy don’t you admit all the names you have commented under?
JD (a9be9b) — 6/25/2012 @ 6:20 pmAnd there real kicker with respect to this thread that the MSM WILL NOT REPORT: The AZ law allowing residency status checks was upheld unanimously. So anyone who opposes this is clearly outside the mainstream.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 6:33 pmIf they overturn much of the law it will be on severability grounds. It will be interesting to read the opinions. How do they avoid judicial legislation?
Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 6/25/2012 @ 12:42 pm
— Well, Mr. Finkelman, if they overturn much of the law it will be because those portions of the law have been determined to be unconstitutional. What remains of the law will NOT be something that was ‘created’ by means of “judicial legislation”, and the impetus will immediately fall upon Congress — if they so choose — to pass a bill that either scraps what remains of the existing law in its entirety OR revises what remains of the existing law with provisions that do not violate the Constitution.
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 7:20 pmThanks to SPQR and Sammy Finkelman! My brother is the attorney in this family and I honestly didn’t know that something being illegal was different than something being a crime. Time to bone up on my law terminology! I appreciate y’all not making too much fun of my lack of knowledge. :o)
YourLilSis (1cd43c) — 6/25/2012 @ 7:48 pm27- Scalia for one.
Comment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 1:13 pm
— Scalia should have recused himself from deciding Bush v Gore? Pray tell, why?
Comment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 1:17 pm
There has also been analysis of whether or not several Justices had a conflict of interest that should have forced them to recuse themselves from the decision
— Because . . . what; they dared to actually vote in that election? Clarence Thomas had a pet ocelot named “W”? What?
On several occasions, William Rehnquist had expressed interest in retiring under a Republican administration
— Okay, let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that you could prove that totally unfounded assertion. What does that even mean? I get it that the Chief Justice would rather rather receive a handshake than a kick in the balls from the White House, but are you seriously trying to suggest that this was the prime motivating factor (or any factor at all!) in how he supposedly steered the Court’s decision in that case?
Prove it.
At an election night party, Sandra Day O’Connor became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.
— Again with the “retiring under a Republican administration” crap? What’s the reason — do they get a better gold watch? Well, of course not. The reason, IF it exists, would be they felt the need to stick around in order to counteract the votes of any new liberal appointees. But, as viewed in tye’s world, to do such a thing is wrong, wrong, wrong!
48-Which is why Gore was actually pulling closer before the partisan court ruling pulled the plug on it…
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 7:51 pmComment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 1:23 pm
— Does anyone understand this gobbledygook? Is tye now questioning the results of the recount conducted independently by the liberal media?
100- because justice corruption is okay when it benefits you. Gross.
Comment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 1:41 pm
— Uh, are you REALLY accusing Sandra Day O’Connor of being ‘corrupt’? Really?
BTW, how’s that view from the bottom of the barrel looking?
false, tye. More of your fantasies. Why do you wish to recreate 12 year old fantasies?
Comment by SPQR — 6/25/2012 @ 1:55 pm
— OMG! tye is really Michael Jackson’s ghost! Scar•y
That was wrong? Democracy is wrong? Following the will of the people is wrong? Go back to North Korea…. your system of government is unwelcome here.
Comment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 2:02 pm
— The will of the people WAS followed. Gore LOST. Get over it, already.
Too many people here read only right-wing fantasy stories instead of actual news. It is no wonder that unbiased sources in popular media seem skewed when all you’re reading is this fake propaganda bullspit.
Comment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 2:14 pm
— That statement is 100% ad hom; no facts. IOW, typical tye.
I can’t reason with stupid and stubborn.
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:12 pmComment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 2:14 pm
— These battles inside your brain must be EPIC!
So one story that you disagree with that came out several years ago on one major network balances the daily lies that faux news airs? Got it.
Comment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 3:34 pm
— tye will now list some of the “daily lies” told by FOXNews …
As soon as the crickets stop chirping …
Damn crickets!
152- too bad it didn’t work as well as the rethug attempt which actually worked
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:29 pmComment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 3:59 pm
— tye will now detail the Republican attempt to steal an election that actually worked …
How are you making out with those crickets, tye? …
Yosemite Sam: “All right! Don’t rush me. I’m a-thinking… and my head hurts.”
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/25/in-which-we-learn-that-abc-news-is-literally-in-bed-with-the-obama-campaign/
narciso (8bfa44) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:29 pm207- i could show you video of dick cheney burning ballot boxes and you wouldn’t buy it so what’s the point?
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:44 pm204- i provided a link when i wrote that scalia should have recused hinself, sweetie.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 8:57 pmtye, you are really pathetic.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:04 pmWe won’t buy video of Dick Cheney burning ballot boxes … well, that’s because … He never burned ballot boxes.
See how that work, tye? Your fabrications and fantasies have no credibility. We don’t buy your stories because … they are false. They are made up. Your stories are fantasies with less believability than Snow White.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:06 pmI predict Obamacare’s mandate will be stuck down, and that’s it. The rest will stand. Unfortunately for America.
The Borg (5e24a8) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:20 pm212-that made no sense. You suck at this.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:21 pm207- i could show you video of dick cheney burning ballot boxes and you wouldn’t buy it so what’s the point?
Comment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 8:44 pm
— What’s the point in asking you to prove your point? No point, really, since you didn’t actually make any points, and therefore cannot point to anything that would prove the point . . . you know, the one you didn’t make.
Great point, tye!!!
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:32 pm204- i provided a link when i wrote that scalia should have recused hinself, sweetie.
Comment by tye — 6/25/2012 @ 8:57 pm
— I was hoping you would spell out an opinion of your own, instead of simply regurgitating someone else’s talking points.
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:35 pmPlease show us that video “tye”
JD (a9be9b) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:36 pmJD, tye was speaking hypothetically; please keep that in mind when reading — well — ANY of his posts.
Icy (655c41) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:39 pmMaybe he was talking about some composite person
JD (a9be9b) — 6/25/2012 @ 9:42 pmSee how that work, tye? Your fabrications and fantasies have no credibility. We don’t buy your stories because … they are false
And next week he’ll justify some Democrat dirty trick by pointing out “well, Cheney burned ballot boxes.”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/25/2012 @ 11:40 pmTye,
Do you have a cognitive problem? Are you on any medication? I know that medications can cause reading comprehension problems, that’s why I asked. SPQR’s response made eminent sense. It was simple to understand.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 6/26/2012 @ 12:21 amFirst of all, the article at that link had nothing to do with Bush v Gore. It’s about a case in 2004, and even if it weren’t a pathetic piece of illogic it gives no reason whatsoever why Scalia should have recused himself in a case in 2000.
Second of all, the article is a pathetic piece of illogic that doesn’t even dent any of the several cogent reasons Scalia gave for his non-recusal in the 2004 case. The author is an idiot.
Of course not, because we’d know it was a forgery. If I were to show you a video of 0bama emerging from his mother’s womb in front of a large sign that said “Welcome to Kenya”, with Frank Marshall Davis holding Stanley’s hand and the newborn (but instantly recognisable) Barack clutching a Koran, would you buy it?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/26/2012 @ 12:55 amYour homework assignment is to study the definition of the word “hypothetical” and the sentence structure of such sentences so that you don’t look like fools next time you encounter one.
tye (cc30fb) — 6/26/2012 @ 5:06 amThe next time we encounter what — a fool? or a hypothetical?
’cause yer kinda both
Icy (3a8c70) — 6/26/2012 @ 7:43 am224- reading comprehension not your strong suit huh?
tye (cc30fb) — 6/26/2012 @ 7:47 amtye, consider suing your grade school teacher, the one that taught you logic and rhetoric.
Or at least steal some better insults, you are boring.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2012 @ 7:59 amThis is getting to be like those annoying direct TV
commercials, tye has no clue, and couldn’t find one if they lent him the flashlight.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/keep-pushing-fast-and-furious-investigation/
narciso (8bfa44) — 6/26/2012 @ 8:07 amA little illustration for tye.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2012 @ 8:21 amLet’s try again, tye: Why should Scalia have recused himself from the Bush v Gore case? Be bold and type out — right here in this thread — the reason why YOU think he should have recused himself in THAT case.
GO!
Icy (3a8c70) — 6/26/2012 @ 8:32 amMy reaction is that the part of the law that was upheld is something that states have been doing prior to the enactment of SB 1070.
Law enforcement have turned over illegals to the feds going way back. Of course, now the feds will let them go.
Arizona should drive their illegals to the border and release them, the California border.
AZ Bob (2d0b00) — 6/26/2012 @ 8:42 amThinking about it, it might be very interesting in these United States if LE was not allowed, by a decision of SCOTUS, to ask people for their ID.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/26/2012 @ 8:50 amThat’s why that provision of 1070 was upheld;
the Robed Wonders did not want to be responsible for the madness.
198. Comment by flicka47 — 6/25/2012 @ 6:07 pm
6-3 to over turn the mandate ~
Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia AND Sotomayer
5-4 to throw the whole enchilada out…
All the above except Sotomayer.
The whole enchilada will not be thrown out
And why do you put Sotomayer as joining in?
I think actually the mildest reason for overturning the mandate will be the ruling. That is the opinion of Chief Justce John Roberts and he will write the majority opinion.
It might go, that a requirement to purchase something, with no way out, is not within the powers of Congress. While everybody may use medical care in some way, not everybody needs insurance. Does Bill Gates? Does Rush Limbaugh?? And there’s not actually a 100% mandate.
Even supposing this understood as a tax for which you get an exemption if you do something – if the penalty is a tax, and buying medical insurance an exemption – it is an unconstitutional tax, because it is either a capitation tax or it is an income tax levied even when somebody doesn’t have any income. So it’s thrown out.
There is another question – is the expansion of Medicaid contained in the bill (that expansion is supposed to enable people to afford the mandated insurance) unconstitutional – that is is the state left the possibility of refusing.
Theoretically, if a state does not do it, they lose all Medicaid Can the federal government tie things like that. I’m not sure how they will rule. Till now, such things have been upheld. It would be a new precedent.
Regardless of that, what should happen to the rest of the bill if the mandate or the mandate plus the forced Medicaid expansion is ruled out. The Medicaid expansion even if not itself unconstitutional might be thrown out if the mandate is.
Or – get this, the mandate might be thrown out because the Medicaid expansion is!! Is that what you think Sotomayor might write? (the mandate is only tenable with the Medicaid expansion)
I expect Scalia will say maybe with Thomas and Alito that the whole bill falls, since Congress did not put in a severability clause. Roberts will say that’s not fair to Congress or the people – a lot of things that were set to expire were folded into that bill – the whole bill cannot fail.
But what fails with it, not because it is unconstitutional, but because the bill now is missing a key part, and they can’t write a substitute.
If Sotomayor joins maybe she will say only the mandate fails and nothing else.
I don’t know what Roberts will knock out together with the mandate. Maybe almost everything except what was renewals or extensions of previously passed legislation. There may be some dissents on that. It’s almost arbitrary. Kennedy and maybe Breyer is probably interested that they don’t do smething to at least until Congress changes the law. drives companies into bankruptcy. It could be argued that even the la as enacted does that but anyway. Yet people have come to depend on some of the provisions. There is no correct answer I think as to what to do.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/26/2012 @ 9:04 am177. 188. 190.
SPQR 6/25/2012 @ 4:36 pm: AD, that’s the flaw in the theory that any cartel bribed ATF for guns.
They had access to cheaper guns that were more desirable through other clandestine channels than straw purchases through Texas gunstores.
Milhouse — 6/25/2012 @ 5:03 pm:
Then why did they buy those guns? It’s not as if the ATF gave them the guns for free!
SPQR — 6/25/2012 @ 5:15 pm:
Milhouse, probably wanted the fancy guns to pimp out with gold inlays and pearl grips.
—————————————
Another idea: Or two ideas:
1) It wasn’t the main cartel who bribed ATF but people who didn’t have access to Central and South American guns.
2) Important traffickers did this but not mainly to get guns.
Suppose someone was on the verge of being indicted. They might become an informer. To inform you have to have a crime to inform on. So you become a key element of the crime of smuggling guns into Mexico. ATF is bribed to let the whole thing take place so someone an be an ATF informant.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/26/2012 @ 9:07 amSomebody wrote this:
Fast and Furious White House Cast of Characters:
Bill Newell: ATF Special Agent, “super-genius” who started Fast & Furious and Wide Receiver.
Kevin O’Reilly: friend and communicator with Bill Newell, a State Department employee seconded to the NSC, who was suddenly transferred to a State Department job in Iraq when the White House discovered that the Issa committee wanted to talk to him.
Dan Restrepo: O’Reilly’s boss, then Director of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the NSC, Center for American Progress alum.
Denis McDonough: then NSC’s head of Strategic Communication and since then promoted to the Deputy Director of the National Security Council, Center for American Progress alum.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57458825-10391695/w.h.-ex-staffer-cant-be-questioned-on-fast-and-furious/
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/26/2012 @ 9:14 amIndeed, Finkelman, that link into the NSC is a key element of the argument that this fiasco was being watched at the White House.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2012 @ 9:17 amThen why did they buy those guns? It’s not as if the ATF gave them the guns for free!
There were quite a few “purchases” of Barret M-82, .50BMG, rifles; which have attained a certain “cachet” in Cartel circles – Gun-Bling, so to speak!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 6/26/2012 @ 9:34 amStill undecided between Turner and Long. Polls close at 9.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/26/2012 @ 9:43 amMcDonough, Jones’s minder, author of the Cairo speech.
narciso (9b9fea) — 6/26/2012 @ 10:10 amGiuliani has endorsed Turner. Also the New York Daily News.
I discussed this with a friend who is a Republican at about 9:35 AM. My advice was Turner.
If Turner is the nominee the race will be taken a little bit more seriously.
Obviously you need more information and it is hard to get.
Candidates are said to be concentrating a little on House districts where there are Republican primaries. There’s one in the 4th.
By the way, sometime after 11 AM I got robocalled by a group that has something like “downgrade” in its name) and asked to vote for Turner. Maybe President downgrade. Not connected with any campaign.
That phone is not in the name of any registered voter in Brooklyn. This is the same phne I got polled on the night of Feb 20 about the presidential race by some outfit whose caller ID gave Las Vegas (702) 570-4579. I told them that if it was between Romney and Obama I didn’t want to answer that. I picked Santorum and Gingrich over Obama. I had a somewhat unfavorable opinion of Obama personally – because he was too cynical I explained to the interviewer, who sounded like a young black man.
http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-702-570-4579
On he one hand one time it was a scam, (Someone posing as elderly woman that lived next door a number of years ago named Mrs Jones needed exactly $18.75) and another time it was HondaCare Customer Service and another time it was
NOW New York. It must be a false telephone number used by a number of places.
On today’s robocall there was something like a 25-year old man reading some positive platitudes about Turner.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/26/2012 @ 10:51 amThis is turner’s Senate campaign website: http://www.turnerforny.com/
Like Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has endorsed Congressman Turner, Mr. Turner does not sign pledges as a matter of strict policy. His vote belongs only to the people who elected him.
Well, that explains why the Club for Growth doesn’t like him.
Wendy Long’s website:
http://www.wendylongfornewyork.com/
Wendy Long’s comparison with her rivals:
http://www.wendylongfornewyork.com/election_day_comparison
She claims she is unwavering in opposing taxes and a rise in the debt ceiling. But it’s too late not to raise it a couple of times like Turner says. For that matter, refinancing the debt, which should be done, would raise costs in the short run but prevent a problem.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/26/2012 @ 10:51 amSF: If they overturn much of the law it will be on severability grounds. It will be interesting to read the opinions. How do they avoid judicial legislation?
(Scalia has said that not throwing out the entire law if a part of it is unconstitutional would amount to judicial legislation – what basis do they have to pick and choose – Roberts and others thinks that goes too far. Of course an alternative is just to knock out what is unconstitutional and leave behind an unworkable mess, that for one thing, might bankrupt insurance companies, or cause insurance costs to go into a death spiral, that nobody ever intended or would intend.
Comment by Icy — 6/25/2012 @ 7:20 pm
– Well, Mr. Finkelman, if they overturn much of the law it will be because those portions of the law have been determined to be unconstitutional.
The question is what do they do with the portions that are not deemed unconstitutional, which is most of it actually, except for the individual mandate and possibly the Medicaid expansion forced upon the states.
Congress did not, as it usually does, insert a severability clause (partly because this was passed without a conference committee, because it never would have passed the Senate a second time)
What remains of the law will NOT be something that was ‘created’ by means of “judicial legislation”,
That’s if they just strike down what is unconstitutional and leave every other provision of the law in place. There may not be any justices that want to do that.
and the impetus will immediately fall upon Congress — if they so choose — to pass a bill that either scraps what remains of the existing law in its entirety OR revises what remains of the existing law with provisions that do not violate the Constitution.
It would need to be revised so it didn’t produce an impossible situation.
You see, no reduction in price for pre-existing conditions – in fact no distinction in price according to age and sex also – and open enrollment are perfectly constitutional regulation of interstate commerce. With no mandate, tax, or subsidy you have problems if that becomes the law..
It basically destroys health insurance.
Sammy Finkelman (48f9c6) — 6/26/2012 @ 11:05 amA new version of an old idea-
“Science Fiction Theatre 3000” style commentary of edited news clips. The video is running along…and then one of the silhouettes says, “Wait, stop it right here, let’s run this again with the edited segment left in…”, etc.
In general I don’t think humiliation is the way to confront someone with the truth, but on occasion a 2×4 across the forehead (figuratively) is what isn required to get attention. I guess nothing bothers the pompous as much as those ridiculing their pomp.
MD in Philly (f0e1bd) — 6/26/2012 @ 11:19 amComment by narciso — 6/25/2012 @ 8:29 pm
On second thought, maybe the really pompous are beyond humiliation.
Who knew the world was run by 7th grade cliques…
MD in Philly (f0e1bd) — 6/26/2012 @ 11:24 ami’ve had a pretty strong suspicion for awhile now
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/26/2012 @ 11:35 am“i’ve had a pretty strong suspicion for awhile now”
Mr. Feets – You could always go to your happy place for tasty snack and journal about it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/26/2012 @ 11:44 amoh man you have no idea Mr. daley there are oppressive forces arrayed against me for example I have to do laundry
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 6/26/2012 @ 11:46 amI always wondered if the Manchurian Candidate McLame would make an appearance. I think he is a victim of Stockholm Syndrome, too.,
Autumn_Illinois (6e3d48) — 6/26/2012 @ 11:58 amAnd the point of repeating that comment?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2012 @ 12:00 pmThey are testing comment automation for astroturf harassment, SPQR.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/26/2012 @ 12:16 pmDustin, I thought it was SEO but the void link is hilarious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2012 @ 12:23 pmGet your Gunwalker t-shirt.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2012 @ 5:27 pmWell, I finally got around to voting, at 8:50, 10 minutes before the polls closed. And the number on my voter’s card was #1. In other words, in my election district (the smallest unit they use here) I was the only Republican to vote all day.
I was going back and forth between Turner and Long, but in the end I went with my heart and voted for Turner.
Milhouse (e5ece0) — 6/26/2012 @ 6:22 pmThanks Sammy. I like your reading much better than mine. Much more reasoned out.;o)
My reason for including Sotomayer is she’s turned into a much more independent thinker than I ‘m guessing the left imagined.
I also like your thinking with Kennedy and Ginsberg, and your comment 241.
It would destroy both health insurance and health care. But maybe then we could start back over at zero? Ugh!! What a mess!
flicka47 (27596a) — 6/26/2012 @ 6:48 pm