SCOTUS: Arizona Immigration Law

And you thought Hoover was dead.

 

This is just painful to read:

 

I am sure you're feeling the pain along with your deep concern over Obama's failure to vehemently-enough cheerlead for gay marriage.

Cheer up.

 

This all makes me chuckle. Carry on.

 

It is going to be interesting if this is upheld. It will become a big issue. I imagine Romney will avoid taking an unequivocal stance so as not to ruin his chances with groups who might otherwise find him appealing.

If he equivocates or doesn't take a hard stance, I will be very concerned. As a person who won't vote for him, I will find it an act of political cowardice if he does not appeal to the hard-liners in his party, a party I don't support.

Very concerned about the cowardice.

 

A few thoughts:

I live in Phoenix, and have for years. The negative impact of illegal immigration is comically overstated. The crime impact is negligible -- Tucson, San Diego and El Paso are among the safest cities in America. There is a financial cost, but not nearly what the hardcore anti-immigrant crowd pretends it to be, because illegal immigrants pay taxes.

In Arizona, illegal immigrants became the catch-all boogeyman for every problem the state has -- including the collapse of the economy. It's absurd, and has no relation to reality.

And this week, as you hear Governor Brewer and all the other supporters crying out that someone has to patrol the border because the federal government won't, remember this: there is a greater federal presence on the border now than there has been at any point in history. We are spending more than ever before to secure the border. We have more federal personnel in border areas. By all accounts, fewer people are crossing over. Crime is down in border cities.

SB 1070 is, in a nutshell, entirely politically driven. (It is also watered down from the original version, which triggered the outrage in the first place. Version one -- passed by the legislature, but reworked before going to the governor -- would have deported illegal immigrants who report crimes, among other things. It was beyond vile -- and it passed the legislature.)

By the way, the notion that this is a setback for the Obama administration because people will be outraged that the solicitor general argued poorly.... Oy.

 

But, but ... the concern ... CONCERN!!!!!!!!!!111ONE1!!!

 

Cute. And, I don't disagree with you.

Don't you imagine he will be forced to at least comment on the law, if not take a stand on it? Would the media celebrate his political skills if he avoided comment?

President Obama is being applauded for his ability to avoid even commenting on it.

The media, which would normally hold a politician accountable, his aiding him. They're not interested in his position, because it's a "tricky situation".

So, while they'll spend time asking Republicans about evolution, and contraception, they aren't even curious in this case.

 

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

 

I don't buy it. I'd like to see notarized transcripts of the lectures he gave.

 

What do Barack Obama, Antonin Scalia, and Elena Kagen all have in common?

 

They all like pussy?