Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice
I liked Eisenhower’s immigration policies. If you are found to have hired illegals you lost your business license.
As for this old saw:
...a WASP physician endowed with the best education much money can buy, told me that he does not celebrate July 4th because the Declaration of Independence had been written by a slave owner and signed by other slave owners.William F. Buckley, Jr. would have shot it right down as a crude argumentum ad hominem. It's logically equivalent to saying, "Godel was a paranoiac, so his Incompleteness Theorems are just symptomatic of paranoia. Why take a paranoiac seriously?" Although more complex, this statement has exactly the same defect as that dentist's. It's merely less abusive.
Back in those olden days, there wasn't any need to resort to behavioral psychology. Instead, this rule of thumb was used: any professional (i.e., specialist) was typically an ignoramus outside of his specialty. Needless to say, that was thrown out as "elitist" when mass college education came along, and here we are now.
“On Monday’s Mark Levin Show: The Supreme Court has struck down 3 of the 4 statues in the Arizona immigration law case brought before it. Mark says this isn’t a victory for us - the state of Arizona has essentially become a state with de facto amnesty. Mark explains, step by step, the immigration ruling - citing congrats to Justice Scalia for a strong dissent opinion. The Court today removed individual state’s sovereignty, not allowing them to protect themselves if the federal government or DHS says that they won’t enforce federal immigration law and or deportation.”
I trust what Levin says as a very smart legal mind. If not for Levin and Landmark Legal Foundation, Obamacare wouldn’t be before these @sshats. So much for all the folks here who have tried to spin it as a good thing when us regular stooges new different. And that’s without fancy law degrees but with good common sense.
And while I’m on a rant another thing that pisses me off royally, is how these full of themselves supremes trickle down these decisions a couple at time. These cases have been decided for months, give us the damn answer! Instead, they seem to be playing with everyone and especially with Obamacare when they know damn well what hangs in the balance. Jerk offs.
The Supreme Court can separate its decisions into separate questions and then answer those questions separately. Since the court can do this, it is technically possible for the court to have some questions answered unanimously while being divided on other issues.
I don't know if that happened here, though it is likely that this did happen on the part of the law that was sent back to the 9th circuit court for review.
You will probably be happy to note that Scalia did quote Vattel's Law of Nations as a legal authority at the very beginning of his dissent:
As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitution ally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated:
“The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.” The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008).
Oh, good God. Hannity is spinning todays decision as a HUGE victory. Time to turn the channel. He’s completely lost it.
I’m disappointed with “Roberts” and am starting to wonder if hes yet anther bad apple.
You may find this Supreme Court ruling I came across while looking for the Chamber of Commerce take on todays action interesting.
From CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA v. WHITING Opinion of the Court
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-115.pdf
...The question presented is whether federal immigration law preempts those provi-sions of Arizona law. Because we conclude that the State’s licensing provisions fall squarely within the federal stat-ute’s savings clause and that the Arizona regulation does...
——————
*JUSTICE THOMAS joins Parts I, II–A, and III–A of this opinion and concurs in the judgment.
...not otherwise conflict with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted.
SCOTUS has been doing that and worse for 80+ years. They figure they have the authority to “define” the law & constitution. This is to them effectively just anther way of saying rewrite it to reflect whatever they desire.
Predictably(Owing to their selection) their “preference” has regularly favored Federal power over State power or Individual rights.
I CAN SEE ARIZONA FROM MA MAISON IN FRANCE ;•}
Absolutely! That’s why Roberts voted with the majority. Otherwise the vote would have been 4/4 and the whole law would have been kicked back to the Appeals Court.
Roberts is playing chess, not Chinese checkers!
Most in legal circles are saying the CJ Roberts has written the ObamaCare decision. We’ll find out on Thursday.
On another note, for the 250+ subscribers to the FR French Politics, Culture and Fashion Ping List,
this bizarre take on the AZ decision by an American guy living in France (dual nationality, also votes in French elections) whose blog seems to have the sole purpose of trashing America, and cheering on Socialist, pro-Islamist, anti-Israel demagogues who now rule France.
His trashing of the NYPD stop and frisk, and his pseudo “analysis” of Joe the Plumber and the Holocaust
http://arunwithaview.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/joe-the-plumber-and-the-holocaust/
are worth the price of admission, as well as your humble correspondant’s defense of RKBA, and our great patriotic men in blue who have made (Thanks to Rudy) and kept NYC the safest big city with the lowest crime rate in America.
Great to learn that we, the founders of the VRWC, have scared these leftists silly. Ha!
Arun Kapil writes:
http://arunwithaview.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/scotus-update-la-loi-cest-moi/
”...the long-term coup d’état the Republicans have set in motion, to rig the political system to their benefit for generations to come and regardless of electoral majorities. Given their ideological self-confidence and relentless determination—qualities utterly lacking on the other side of the political spectrum—I fear they will succeed. With the far right lurch in the US and Europe’s descente aux enfers—not to mention global warming, environmental catastrophe, and the rest—, it’s kind of hard to be optimistic for the future.”
From his keyboard to God’s ear ;•}
His other posts on America and the “ultra conservative far right” ;•} are worth reading for good examples of the mind set of the Kool-Ade drinking leftists who have brought Europe to the brink of the abyss.
Monsieur Kapil states he is American, but his chicken little scaredy-cat whining betrays him. We are an optimistic people confident in our destiny who are doers. We have lived through the very worst and understand we cannot, and will not, ever give up or give in.
What are these people going to do in November?
Something goes with Roberts that in my mind bodes no good for the USA or the Founders intentions. His colors were cast when he went (perhaps he was directed) for a redo of the inaugural swearing in private chambers without a bible. There is also that famous photo of Roberts sucking up to Obama in Roberts’ chambers. It is hard to believe a slip, if unintentional, could not have been rectified in the public ceremony. I suspect there is something we do not know about Roberts. Of course being a Bush appointee doesn’t give him unchallenged credibility as to Latino behavior of any kind.
Great to learn that we, the founders of the VRWC, have scared these leftists silly!
What are they going to do on Thursday and in November, (the Good Lord willing)?
I would beg you all to calm down.
There were only 8 justices deciding this case. Kana was forced ro recuse herself.
Had Roberts NOT voted with the majority, the vote would have been split 4/4 and automatically the entire law would have been handed back to the Appeals Court whose decision to overturn the entire law would stand.
Roberts did what he could to salvage some part of the law. IMHO he is a brilliant legal mind, perhaps the most brilliant in modern history, and he is a constitutional conservative.
Too bad it doesn’t work. You asked, I answered. People who come to this forum for a couple of weeks and make outlandish comments get called on them.
Thanks Cincinna.
Your friend is full of caca, newbee. Read the dissenting opinions.
I have read them and I’m right. You need a lesson in reading comprehension. I mean, as long as you’ve been here you surely should know everything. Isn’t that how it works here? The longer you belong and post to the FR the smarter you are?
Sadly if true then you appear to be an exception.
Welcome to the wonderful world of judicial review, one of the great curses of our system. The Framers put judicial review nowhere in the Constitution; you’d suppose if they wanted it in there it would be in there. Since John Marshall pulled his constitutional coup in Marbury v Madison over 200 years ago, it’s been nothing but a source of mischief (e.g. Roe v. Wade, Kelo) or even in one case war (Dred Scott). And when Obama “warned” the SCOTUS (AKA unelected black-robed mullahs) that overturning the ACA would be a bad idea, he was accysed using “Chicago tactics”, intimidation etc. At least there are some principled conservatives like Andrew Napolitano and Newt Gingrich who want to put some serious restraints on the SCOTUS. Hope we’ve learned our lesson. And yes, I think ACA is an abomination, but better it be struck down legislatively—that would give its well-earned demise far more legitimacy.
"The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
Hmmmmmm. Sounds to me as if the 9th Circuit is authorized to do more than just "look it over".
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.