Skip to comments.
Court refuses to block benefits portion of Prop 200 (Illegal Immigrants)
Tucson Arizona Star ^
| August 9, 2005
| Paul Davenport (A.P.)
Posted on 08/09/2005 2:12:35 PM PDT by Graybeard58
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
To: Graybeard58
Can't we outlaw the 9th circuit.
To: Graybeard58
Judges in Kalifornia shouldn't make rulings for the rest of us.
To: One Proud Dad
Can't we outlaw the 9th circuit. This time, they ruled in favor of the good guys.
4
posted on
08/09/2005 2:16:26 PM PDT
by
Heartland Mom
(My heroes have always been cowboys.)
To: One Proud Dad
Can't we outlaw the 9th circuit.
Why? IN this case, they are correctly interpreting not only the law as written, but the will of the voter....
5
posted on
08/09/2005 2:17:52 PM PDT
by
MikefromOhio
(When Judge Roberts is confirmed, FR will be EXTREMELY funny that day...Get your PROZAC here!!!)
To: One Proud Dad
Read the story, not just the headline.
6
posted on
08/09/2005 2:18:22 PM PDT
by
airborne
To: Proudly Republican
7
posted on
08/09/2005 2:18:51 PM PDT
by
jtminton
(Friends don't let friends have too much cowbell.)
To: jtminton
Reports from the nether regions call for snow.
8
posted on
08/09/2005 2:19:46 PM PDT
by
Ingtar
(Understanding is a three-edged sword : your side, my side, and the truth in between ." -- Kosh)
To: Graybeard58
Looks like they stumbled across a right answer for once.
9
posted on
08/09/2005 2:19:47 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(If you must obey your party, may your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders.)
To: One Proud Dad
Am I reading this wrong or are you? The whole thing reads like a running double negative, so I could be wrong.
"A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to block implementation of a portion of a voter-approved Arizona law that denies some public benefits to illegal immigrants."
It sounds like they (the court) refused to block a law that "denies some public benefits to illegal immigrants".
Is that not a good thing to you?
10
posted on
08/09/2005 2:22:01 PM PDT
by
ndt
To: MikeinIraq
IN this case, they are correctly interpreting not only the law as written, but the will of the voter....Well, not quite. All they did was say that the plaintiff had no standing. Once they come across someone who does have standing, then we'll see what they have to say about the law.
11
posted on
08/09/2005 2:24:21 PM PDT
by
inquest
(FTAA delenda est)
To: inquest
good point....
and I think its only a matter of time until this issue ends up in the Supreme Court realm...
12
posted on
08/09/2005 2:25:36 PM PDT
by
MikefromOhio
(When Judge Roberts is confirmed, FR will be EXTREMELY funny that day...Get your PROZAC here!!!)
To: Graybeard58
There is NO constitutional right to receive public benefits.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
13
posted on
08/09/2005 2:25:50 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: ndt
You are all correct. It is late in the day and I have been looking at this screen too long ( actually programming today :). I am going home.
To: MikeinIraq
The laws of the land supersede the "will of the people." We are a Republic, not a mobocracy after all.
Smart decision from the Ninth Circus, for a change.
15
posted on
08/09/2005 2:26:37 PM PDT
by
Clemenza
(Intelligent Design Isn't Very Intelligent)
To: inquest
Didn't the 9th Circuit rule that California's Prop 187 was unconstitutional?
16
posted on
08/09/2005 2:27:24 PM PDT
by
Wristpin
( Varitek says to A-Rod: "We don't throw at .260 hitters.....")
To: Clemenza
yeah, but they happen to coincide in this case....
17
posted on
08/09/2005 2:30:40 PM PDT
by
MikefromOhio
(When Judge Roberts is confirmed, FR will be EXTREMELY funny that day...Get your PROZAC here!!!)
To: ndt
Is that not a good thing to you? Yes, but it obviously wasn't to the person that wrote the story. Hence all the double negatives. ;-)
18
posted on
08/09/2005 2:32:17 PM PDT
by
glorgau
To: Graybeard58
CITIZENSHIP no longer matters. All that matters is RESIDENCY.
Illegal Immigrants are RESIDENTTS of the state and therefore are entitled to any and all state and federal benifits.
There are agencies that make sure they receive them all too.
This will be taken to a higher court and voided, just like Prop 187, OR they will take each piece to the courts until this law is recinded.
No way will the libs stand for this ruling.
To: ndt
Looks like they ruled right for once!
I for one am tired of watching emergency rooms close down because the illegals use them for free and the ER's go bankrupt.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson