I don't think Judge Andrew Napolitano yesterday gave Neil Cavuto quite the response he was looking for when he asked him about Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's predictably bad decision to make hers the first official police state in the country for immigrants.
See, every other paid Fox News Analyst that day had been sturdily defending the bill. Not the Judge:
Napolitano: She's gonna bankrupt the Republican Party and the state of Arizona. Look at what happened to the Republicans in California with the proposition --
Cavuto: What happens?
Napolitano: Ah, Hispanics -- who have a natural home in the Republican Party because they are socially conservative -- will flee in droves. She's also gonna bankrupt her state, because no insurance company will provide coverage for this. And for all the lawsuits that will happen -- for all the people that are wrongfully stopped -- her budget will be paying for it. Her budget will be paying the legal bills of the lawyers who sue on behalf of those that were stopped.
This will be a disaster for Arizona -- to say nothing of the fact that it's so unconstitutional that I predict a federal judge will prevent Arizona from enforcing it as soon as they attempt to do so. That will probably be tomorrow.
Judge Napolitano is an interesting mixed bag of an analyst. Sometimes he's just a flat-out nutcase. At other times, he's a sharp and insightful guy. This was definitely one of the latter occasions.
I think what Arturo Venegas, Jr., former chief of the Sacramento Police Department and project director of the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, had to say bears repeating:
“The passage of SB 1070 in Arizona is a catastrophe for community policing, with repercussions that will be felt by law enforcement officials across the country. The actions of the state legislature and Gov. Brewer are an unfunded mandate to Arizona police and are clearly rooted in concerns over politics, not public safety. No police officer should have to put arresting an undocumented immigrant over catching a violent criminal to avoid a lawsuit, and no victim or witness of a crime should be afraid to report it because he or she will be deported if he or she speaks to police.
“This law will drive a wedge between police and the immigrant and Latino communities not only in Arizona, but around the country. Trust between law enforcement professionals and the communities they serve is the cornerstone of community policing, and departments across the country have been working for decades to develop strong relationships with the community. Latinos and immigrants across America have been watching Arizona with fear, and will retreat deeper into the shadows now that this bill has become law.
“Today is a very sad day for the majority of us in law enforcement who believe that effective policing is based on community trust. I hope the federal government will heed this wake-up call and take long-overdue action for comprehensive immigration reform to protect our communities, and I am deeply disappointed in Governor Brewer and the Arizona legislature for passing this dangerous, costly, and ineffective law.”
It's important to understand that this kind of approach means that real violent crime is going to increase in Arizona. That's certainly what has happened in Maricopa County, under the regime of Crazy Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose approach to emphasizing immigration enforcement has served as the inspiration for this bill. As the conservative Goldwater Institute found [PDF], such an approach meant skyrocketing rates in real crime:
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for vitally important law-enforcement functions in one of the largest counties in the nation. It defines its core missions as law-enforcement services, support services, and detention.
MCSO falls seriously short of fulfilling its mission in all three areas. Although MCSO is adept at self-promotion and is an unquestionably “tough” law-enforcement agency, under its watch violent crime rates recently have soared, both in absolute terms and relative to other jurisdictions. It has diverted resources away from basic law-enforcement functions to highly publicized immigration sweeps, which are ineffective in policing illegal immigration and in reducing crime generally, and to extensive trips by MCSO officials to Honduras for purposes that are nebulous at best. Profligate spending on those diversions helped produce a financial crisis in late 2007 that forced MCSO to curtail or reduce important law-enforcement functions.
In terms of support services, MCSO has allowed a huge backlog of outstanding warrants to accumulate, and has seriously disadvantaged local police departments by closing satellite booking facilities. MCSO’s detention facilities are subject to costly lawsuits for excessive use of force and inadequate medical services. Compounding the substantive problems are chronically poor record-keeping and reporting of statistics, coupled with resistance to public disclosure.
Meanwhile, the tiny handful of remaining Arizona Hispanic Republicans issued a statement on the new law that blamed President Obama. Because, you see, he hasn't managed to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Never mind that this bill was entirely a creature of the Republican Party. For some people, Denial is a state as big as Arizona.
...and law suits everywhere, this will destroy Arizona financially.
Racism is f@#king expensive.
Being Republican has a high price. Your self esteem. Your peace of mind. Your soul. Your country and eventually your money.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Didn't anyone vet this guy? How can they not know, he wouldn't come out in favor of this legislation.
Question, will the Arizona state trooper uniform now have brown shirts? Just asking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulGdqcez2JM&fe...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
[I]t's so unconstitutional that I predict a federal judge will prevent Arizona from enforcing it as soon as they attempt to do so. That will probably be tomorrow.
I think Napolitano is correct here. And this is why it is imperative that a free country have an independent judiciary, one that can tell a democratically elected lawmaking body, no matter the size of its majority, HELL NO!
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Problem is I'm not sure how free our judiciary ever was.
Federal judges are appointed, but many state judges are elected and have to stand for reelection.
Even with Federal Judges, if you're social circle is confined to one of a class, like the rich and powerful of your community, their concerns become your concerns as "common sense."
And with the current supreme court it seems they've been compromised...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Very true. It's something we need to examine seriously, especially with the Judicial Activism activists, who would seek to make judges more dependent on the legislative majority's viewpoint.
The judicial power, as with all powers, rightfully begins with the people, but having judges stand for popular election and re-election is a terrible idea in my opinion. Judges must be more removed from majoritarian popular opinion.
Even with Federal Judges, if you're social circle is confined to one of a class, like the rich and powerful of your community, their concerns become your concerns as "common sense."
Indeed. All the more important to practice a kind of affirmative action in our courts.
Yep. Though this is a problem with judges being too far removed from the people. What with our republic itself having been compromised by corruption and corporate greed.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
...the full intent of the Arizona's White Racist Repulican Tea-bagging KKK'ers, you have to know about the FIRST LAW the governor waits to sign:
APRIL 19th, 2010:
On a preliminary vote of 31-22, Arizona's government passed the 'Birther Law' - which REQUIRES ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE wanting to be listed on the Arizona Ballot in 2012 to provide a Birth Certificate. The Law now goes for full vote in the congress and is expected to pass.
APRIL 24th, 2010:
The Tea-Bag Hag, Governor Gov. Jan Brewer, signs new Immigration Law forcing ALL STATE OFFICIALS to demand papers from 'illegals' based on SKIN COLOR suspicions. If they FAIL to do so, they will be fired.
So here's what it's about:
The Tea-Bagger Birthers of Arizona BELIEVE Obama is a foreign born illegal from Kenya.
Both laws would FORCE Obama to produce his birth certificate if he wants to be on the ballot in Arizona in 2012.
When Obama comes to Arizona to campaign in 2012, he can be arrested UPON ARRIVAL AT THE AIRPORT by ANY Arizona Official and FORCED to produce his Citizenship papers...based on the suspicion he is NOT an american citizen!
UNDERSTAND:
1) If Obama doesn't come to Arizona for campaigning, those TEA-BAGGERS will say "See, the magic Negro is really a Kenyan -- This proves it"
2) If Obama doesn't campaign in Arizona, Tea-Baggers and Republicans will say "See, he doesn't care about you enough to campaign here -- This proves it and, please, vote republican!"
3) If Obama comes to Arizona and isn't arrested (because he IS a US Born Citizen) Tea baggers will scream "Conspiracy! The Feds have Trumphed Arizona Law, and are subverting the 10th amendment of the Federal Constitution, which is a Socialist, Communist take over of our freedoms -- And this proves it."
4) If he doesn't 'produce' a birth certificate and fails to get on the ballot, Republicans of Arizona ensure that their candidate is the ONLY legitimate candidate on the ballot with a chance to win, and ensuring another sure-thing red state for the National GOP, regardless of how the general Arizona Population really wants to vote.
IN CONCLUSION:
This is nothing more than Tea-Bagging Masturbation from a bunch of Looney Art Bell loving, Gun wielding racists; the great-great grand children of Murderers and Thieves who stole the land under their feet from Indigenous Natives in the biggest genocide this continent has ever seen.
Presidential elections are federal jurisdiction, will Arizona really have the right to legislate a Presidential ballot?
What ever happened to the law to extend the divorce waiting period?
They certainly do like to waste time and money.
.
You forgot the Legislation moved to REMOVE permits to conceal and carry...
... While lifting background checks.
Now, in Arizona, even the criminally insane can carry a side arm.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
non-permit open carry for years. How is allowing them to carry concealed going to make a difference?
If Arizona gets away with this we will have devolved as a nation to pre FDR days. If the generations to come are going to have a country we will have to go through the same shit all over again.
This country has always had a sizable slice of society (?) in the looney bin. They come out then go back in hiding. Right now it looks like the wacko tumor is metastisizing.
History has shown what happens when thugs and dumbasses are in charge.
Obama won't win Arizona anyways. But seeing Arizona flush itself down the toilet by doing something Obama is against might gain Obama other states.
This will also backfire when Obama produces his birth certificate and they have to admit it is valid or face a lawsuit.
conservatives should have been paying attention to. When otherwise law abiding people will not coopoerate with the police due to fear of retaliation because of imiigrations issues, the crime rate will soar.
But as the first woman Governor of Texas, Miriam Ma Ferguson is reputed to have said, "If English was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for the schoolchildren of Texas." Whatever makes you feel good until the bullet hits your foot.
TFR
believe that many americans don't realize Jesus was a Jew. They think he probably had brown hair, blue eyes and spoke correct redneck. Honestly these rednecks have no idea about religion. They get their teaching from a man that says he got the calling. Really there are people like that. I know I asked a friend once where her uncle went for his school training. She said he didn't go to any school he got the calling. I was shocked. Having been around chaplains in the military they had to have schooling. I mentioned that her uncle wouldn't be allowed in the chaplain's corp. She said she didn't trust a preacher who went to school. Duh, redneck in Tn. OMG, guess these people all drink from the same well.
Southern Yankee
Ma Ferguson has been stuck with the "credit" for this boneheaded remark forever, but she never said it. She was crooked, but not stupid -- more in the tradition of Huey Long and other Southern populists. If anything, she was brave in pushing for more education for "colored" (black, Native American and Hispanic) schools.
Where have we seen this before? I'm sure I'll think of it in a moment.
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
....try Hitler's Germany.
dandy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K08akOt2kuo
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The internal passport system required under the Soviet Union.
The GOP is tying itself ever more closely to a dwindling population of white males. It's a recipe for irrelevance. A Faustian bargain: a little more political power today for bit player status a few decades hence. If that's the way they want it: So be it.
White males and women with big hair and too much makeup....
Arizona is so poorly ran, they're trying to literally sell their fucking state capitol building.
They can't even afford rest area toilets anymore.
It couldn't happen to a "nicer" place. Fuck You Arizona!
Republicans ruined California and they ruined Ohio, now they are ruining Arizona.
Republicans = the party of destruction.
very costly.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
who will risk life and limb to be here.
The Costs of Mass Deportation
Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective
The $285 Billion Nonsolution: The Cost of Deportation
New CAP report details the severe consequences of a deportation-only immigration policy on the nation's economy and the drain on the federal treasury.
me-oww!
Don't say this isn't gonna work. It took a lot of hatred to put this bill together.A retarded brain is an already wasted thing to waste. Oh good Lord, who's gonna look out for the racists. They're armed, dangerous, and ignorant. That is a bad combination. They're going to have to go back to spousal abuse to get their nut.And their kids can look forward to regular butt whuppins. Where oh where will all their sick hatred be vented. OK I mean besides road rage.They can't just parade around with Nazi signs all day. Boring.Somebody needs to pay. Who will it be. Ok the gays. Why not. Oh there's laws against that too. What about the cops. They've been polishing up their tasers for this very moment and you say it's not gonna happen. Oh where is the justice? Where?
to the officials in AZ who are required to enforce this law if someone were to compile a list of European immigrants living in AZ?
It’s not demagoguery - It’s enhanced political marketing
It might force them to realize their own ineptitude when it comes to law making.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
shown its contempt for reasonableness or brains.
Remember it was ASU that felt President Obama hadn’t demonstrated enough achievement to be given an honorary degree. (As Jon Stewart pointed out an honor that actually carries the gravitas of a “Worlds Best Dad” mug)
It’s not demagoguery - It’s enhanced political marketing
"Judge Napolitano is an interesting mixed bag of an analyst. Sometimes he's just a flat-out nutcase."
He is a right/libertarian leaning commentator and an ex-judge. Sure, you might not agree with his political leanings, but the clips of his that I've seen suggest he doesn't slime or defame and argues points on their merit.
So... why the name-calling?
So...why no recognition on your part of the compliment?
me-oww!
I've been a reader for a while. These are my 1st comments.
Thanks for the warm welcome.
Welcome to C&L!
...mostly he's not so sharp and insightful is all. Rest assured he will lapse...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Thanks for your "concern".
So sorry about your victimization.
I haven't used the word "concern" in any of my comments thus-far. Nor have I mentioned any victimization. Sorry, you lost me.
You are easily lost then...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I pointed out the poster is playing a victim and he/she is using it's "concern".
How is that against policy? I'm not trying to flame bait, but I know one when I read one, if you know what I meam. But I'll stop since this is becoming as senstive as Comedy Central.
[It's chattering and off topic, Liberalicious. We've discussed this before with you. Please knock it off. Site Monitor]
trading insults back and forth between commenters, Liberalicious.
You know the rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH23UjMG5wQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ALHiadIsKo
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
To honeybaked, I've been on the receiving end of some of the posters here. That's fine most of the time I have to say I agree with the readers and posters.
The part that cracks me up though is the vast majority of the people who respectfully disagree with me are trying to move the discourse along productively.
The snarky ones use the anonymity of the internet to say the rude things their mommies and daddies should have taught them to never use. And frankly the cowards would never use them face to face, because, you never know if that stranger might feel justified in bouncing them around their playground.
Leet me guess, the site's been on your RSS feed..?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
.
Ya. He gets the name calling when it is deserved, which is any time he's not sharp and insightful, which is fairly often.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Cherry picking? You might want to re-check what it means to "cherry pick" as David labeled him a "nutcase" in the article. And regardless of the before or after -- calling someone a "nutcase" says just that: They have displayed nutcase-esque behavior on multiple occasions in the past.
When you call someone crazy, regardless of the niceties and words-of-goodwill that preceded or followed the crazy-bomb, the crazy-bomb still stands on its own and deserves support -- if requested. And I'm requesting.
As such, I would love to see evidence of Napolitano being a nutcase.
cherry picking.
You, BTW, answered your own question, with that explanation in your first comment.
me-oww!
http://lh3.ggpht.com/dkyogya/SKAXBe0lueI/AAAA...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
So anyone who is right or libertarian-leaning is a "nutcase" by default?
[In reference to the prior violated comments: Strike Two. Knock off the flaming. And don't present for a second time something the monitors have already violated. Site Monitor]
You'll see that it IS left-leaning. You'd know not only that had you read the TOS under comment policy, but you'd also know that personal attacks against other posters, like you calling me names, is not acceptable around here.
So yes, 'Libertarian' and 'right' is seen as being batshit crazy insane or nutcasey, if you like, in this part of the blogosphere
me-oww!
Ok, so the site is hypocritical at its core as it champions calling people names whose views are disagreed-with... but outright prohibits anything of the sort directed towards site members... even to the point of actively removing comments whose spirit and word-usage are taken directly from the source post.
Good to know.
I've rarely dipped my tow to read user comments before and simply posted today as I thought the barb was a bit unwarranted. Whereas now I know that defaming the opposition is desired. Thanks for the tip.
I'll try to make this understandable to you, since nuance doesn't seem to be your strong point.
Judge Napolitano is a public figure. His actions are therefore fair to scrutinize. And be clear, the criticisms to which you object are on his stances, not on his person. I can say that your actions are reprehensible without saying that YOU are reprehensible.
Further, Napolitano is NOT on these threads. If he was, we wouldn't allow name calling towards him on the threads either.
However, we do not allow attacks against other posters on this site (as evidenced by the site monitor deleting liberalicious's posts), because then the threads devolve into flame wars.
I never name-called. Merely pointed out the poster's length of time on C&L (available to all users BTW), then said poster sarcasticly thanked me for a warm welcome, and then I pointed out the whine and said victimization of the post. Maybe pointing out the poster's "concern" was a bit out of line, but I did not do any name-calling. But I will admit to allowing an off topic thread going, but I did not mean to. For that, I apologize to the sitemons.
for your "concern".
...the definition of cherry picking:
Second: Here's your evidence.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Damn Nashville, BTW...
:P
me-oww!
Stretching the lead to two goals. The two-goal lead is the most dangerous in hockey.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
at end of regulation. 16 shots on blackhawks, 30 on predators. Didn't see the game but a .750 save percentage doesn't win playoff games
:)
me-oww!
may be over
Yeah, I didn't cherry pick.
As stated above, when calling someone a nutcase or crazy, that claim needs support on its own. Which is why I requested evidence to back up said claims. Then you link to 5 posts, 3 of which show Napalitano expressing support for things those on the left support and the other 2 show Napalitano expressing support for things those on the right support. Someone supporting something that you don't support doesn't make them a "nutcase".
and paulbots seem nutty. There is a right/left mix which is often at odds with itself, and the folks that proselytise the philosophy are totally oblivious to the irony contained within this poorly thought out 'me first, me second and me third' selfish load of crap.
And yeah you did. Cherry pick, that is. Classic case.
me-oww!
That claiming to be "libertarian" for the most part, is just a way to cowardly duck the fact they are Republican. Yes, there may be some true "libertarians" out there (in its true definition), but the majority are nothing but Repubs and/or teabags. As for Paul....let's see, I've never seeing an "L" or an "I" after his name, always an "R". Wonder why that is? Don't bother pursuing the cherry picking angle, you'll never get an admission of fault. It never happens on the thug side.
...then you are prejudiced!
I'm a left leaning libertarian and I've been commenting on this site 3 or 4 years...
I'm pro choice, pro stem cell research, anti war, (drug war included)
I hate mixing of religion and politics, I'm an athiest, and hate racism and got no problem with gay marriage or gays in the military...
...on the other hand I'm pro gun, fiscally conservative and not much of a socialist. ...but thats mostly because our country has been ripped off blind.
"I could/would be much more of a socialist" ...if I trusted the gov't. (but I don't)
I'll talk socialism anytime, as long as we get control and complete trust in our gov't...In the meantime...(I'll take the constitution)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
"as long as we get control and complete trust in our gov't"
good luck with that...I'm a libertarian too, just one thing if you are for personal freedoms and you are a fiscal conservative, then you are a libertarian on the right...check out the nolan chart
There's a lot of sharp knives out but I had some thoughts on craziness the other day. If you take a seat on a bus or sit down in a bar and the person next to you starts telling you that god wants him to tell you something or starts going on about a socialist-Nazi plot most people will try to avoid the conversation. In other words you give that person a "crazy" pass because you don't want to provoke a psychotic episode. When the same kind of language appears on Fox News it's given legitimacy. It's like Fox News brings out the crazy.
Maybe crazy should be rated on a 10 point scale, with Beck being a 10. At any rate there's a lot of crazy on Fox News and I think they get a pass most of the time. C&L may be guilty of using too broad a brush but Fox needs to be called out on this.
Sorry, I shoulda linked to some of Napolitano's nuttiness. I can't think of any other word for it.
...to nullify opressive federal law through state legislation...
then you must logically think California is "crazy" for legalizing Marijuana?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
What?
1) State legislators cannot nullify federal anything. Ever.
2) How is preventing people from getting on commercial airplanes with their rifles, shotguns, and pistols oppressive federal law?
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
...going to answer your TWO questions until you answer my question above...!*&%@
"is it nutty for California to legalize marijuana"?
(in defiance of federal law)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
It's an example of overreaching. The states have never had the right to control immigration. That's a power given to the Federal government, legislated by Congress and enforced by the executive branch via the State Department.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
...it's illegal to ask someone for their "papers" w/ no reason
no?
...constitution maybe?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
U S Constitution Article I, Sec 8, Cl 4:
Powers of Congress
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...
Article VI pp 2:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I agree w/ Napolitano that Arizona is wrong...(big time)
and I agree that the constitution of the United States makes it illegal to ask someone for their papers...and Arizona is gonna have problems...
The only difference between Arizona's "new law" and California's "new law" is that...
Arizona is gonna get overturned...
it doesn't change the fact that both states have the right to legislate their own laws.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
It's inarguable that Arizona doesn't have the right to enforce this law.
It's arguable (though I disagree with the argument), that California is trying to supercede the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Here's the difference: The Constitution prohibits individual states from making laws pertaining to immigration matters inside of their individual borders. It does not prohibit the states from making laws pertaining to commerce inside of their own borders.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I would agree with you since California is limiting the marijuana use to the very ill, not recreational,
However, there is one caveat, I'm not sure what the status is of intrastate commerce since UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 270 U. S. 124 (1926).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It's certainly not illegal to ask at legal entry points (border stations and airports, for instance), or when INS gets a warrant to search a business where it's suspected that illegal immigrants are employed.
We went for a long time in this country without having to carry id of any kind. Didn't need a driver's license or passport (except to get through a border crossing or into an international port) to go anywhere. There was no social security until the 1930s...
But the problem here isn't that it's unconstitutional to require people to have papers- it's not- but that this Arizona law promotes harassment via a profiling process. If you suspect someone of being an illegal immigrant, the Constitution mandates that you get a warrant before searching for proof of illegality.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Andy,
...are you trying to tell me a local cop cannot enforce immigration laws?
are you trying to tell me that only federal "police" can arrest someone who is here illegally?
(I don't think you are right)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
And profiling is illegal.
I used to see it all of the time. I lived on the Grand Rapids side of the GR/East GR side of the border. GR is ~20% African-American, EGR, until recently, was lily white. EGR cops used to pull over African-American drivers at much higher rates than caucasians (and they'd pull over quite a few caucasians, too, if the car didn't look like a fit in the tony suburb) with the most chickenshit excuses (I've known a few who were pulled over for driving 2 mph too slow), the real reason being that they were guilty of DWB: Driving While Black. A few Federal courts put the hammer to this practice back in the Clinton era. That's what Napolitano fears that this AZ law mandates, that it's a DWL (Driving While Latino) law. It's neo-Jim Crow-ism, to be sure.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
(that only profiling) is illegal
...then logically blanket checkpoints are legal? (where they stop everyone?)
if you believe that "blanket checkpoints" are legal as long as there is no profiling involved ...you are wrong.
asking for someones "papers" (for no reason) is illegal period!!! (regardless of whether profiling is involved or not)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Blanket checkpoints for drunk drivers are legal because we don't have a right to drive, only a privilege. But those privileges are granted by the states, not the Federal government, so the states are allowed to set up these checkpoints (although, iirc, the feds do have the dispensation to do so on tribal reservations and in DC, but either way, it's about the privilege to drive vs. the right to drive).
Likewise, we don't have a right to cross the national border into the US w/out proof that we have the right to be in the country. But, again, the Constitution reserves the right to enforce these blanket checks for the Federal government.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
"Blanket checkpoints for drunk drivers are legal because we don't have a right to drive, only a privilege"
Ok then...
Blanket checkpoints for illegal immigrants are legal because we don't have a right to drive, only a privelege
or perhaps...
blanket checkpoints for white domestic terrists are legal because we don't have a right to drive, only a privelege
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
So what AZ can do is set up drunk driving checkpoints and test all drivers for impairment, and if the driver fails the tests, then ask for ID.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaA6GUQlwqA&fe...
this vid is a textbook example of how to handle "Hitler type fascists" or "Stalin/Mao type commies"
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Not saying that the internal checkpoints are legal or not- my gut tells me that they shouldn't be, and they'd definitely be illegal if conducted by any local county or state entities- but your threshold for defining fascism seems a bit low.
And what's funny is that there are probably quite a few people out there who you might consider fascists who like the way things operate now, being able to hire illegal immigrants so as to pay them a lot less.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
...fascism is off-base, and you brought it up yourself, Milquetoast, by dropping Stalin and Mao in there.
The applicable word is "authoritarian".
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
...when I think authoritarian...
I think Hitler, Mao, Stalin.
no?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
...Mao and Stalin weren't fascists.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
...and Stalin weren't fascists.
(never said they were either)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Anyone arrested has to be due to probable cause, although the conservatives are trying to change it to probable suspicion, a far looser, more ominous standard.
If there is no probable cause than more than likely it's profiling. Such cases would be thrown out.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And the target of drunk driving checkpoints is to get drunks off the road, regardless of race or ethnicity, which falls under the Police Powers of the State of Health, Safety and Welfare, an inherent power of the X Amendment, since you don't want an impaired driver directing what is in effect a two ton missile.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Kind of reminds me of the all duck cast of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, with the classic quote, "Et Tu, Quoque..."
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://storypilot.com/sf/art/startling/startl...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
A rare moment of clarity from a Fox "News" Commentator.
Sometimes they forget who they are working for... FOX.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
we need to resolve this somehow. there are so many constructive ways to solve this. always ask for id from everyone, that way no profiling is happening. the only problem is pulling some one over because they look hispanic, but they do that anyway. I wish they profiled the 911 attackers. then they can profile Timothy Mcveigh looking basterds. still, when the only crime is being here illegally, then what else can a police officer do other than to ask for ID?
Someone more knowledgeable can verify the citation, but I believe even the right-leaning Supreme Court ruled that it's only Constitutional to ask for ID of the drivers and passengers of a vehicle; simply standing around, walking, leaning against a lightpost etc., etc, is NOT just cause for law enforcement to ask for "papers, please".
that a person has committed a crime (as determined by LE), he/she can be asked for ID. That may include "loitering" around a light pole. Trust me, it happens. And probably more frequently to blacks and Hispanics.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Actually the reichwing believe in checking papers more.
But cars have a peculiar situation under the law. Although there's some expectations of privacy, it's not total, so Morganna the Kissing Bandit can't drive topless.
And, because a car is mobile, it doesn't require a warrant to search like one's home. But some kind of probable cause does have to be present. However, it does tend to go back and forth like New York v. Belton in 1981 and Arizona v. Gant, Volume 556, Docket Number 07-542 2009.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
some time, that there is a segment of the American society who will more than welcome a type of German Government like in 1930. I would say 33% of population would love to see real facism here in America.
You just hit the nail on the head Garcia . They may not know it but that's what they are asking for ( Fascism ) and who they are supporting ( Fascists ) .
When you favor big business over labor, emotion over reason, go overboard on nationalism and get misty-eyed at the idea of invading the foreigners, you may not be an out-right fascist, but you are certainly crowding the line.
they aren't facist. what complaint do you use when a canadian cop asks for id.
some sort of documentation like every other country in the world has, and you have make employers follow the rules.
just fucked the Republicans' "come back" in November? Might even re elected Obama in 2012.
arizona. can illegals vote? probably, george w got thousands of dead people to vote for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14njUwJUg1I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhmjnYKlVnM&fe...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
the police can stop anybody on the street and ask for id documentation. Totally legal. But you have to look like Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. I've seen it happen twice. German Police is extremely nice. No testosteron problem, or macho attitude at all. But if get you stupid...actually, you won't get stupid.
Just having dark hair will get you stopped. It happened to us BEFORE the law, and our family is not Latino. I would not vacation there again unless this law is overturned. Southern Yankee below has the right idea!
He is right. We know the republicans are morally bankrupt, getting rid of their money would ba a good thing!
I have already sent an e-mail to the Governor and told her that I wouldn't step into AZ to spend a dime until this law was repealed. Am not even hispanic and I find this law extremely offensive. Everyone send an e-mail and tell your friends to boycott AZ.
Southern Yankee
If I were the Repugs I don't think I would be counting on one single Hispanic vote next time around . This shit will cost them dearly , if we can get a high turn out they are screwed .Man , I gotta tell you , these right wing horse shit ads on C & L drive me up the wall , am I alone ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knv6nDZX1mc
4409 confronts the Arizona Senators who are pushing this abominable legislation!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
This is going to happen over and over.
Also, look for a large increase in theft of birth certificates that Hispanics will carry in their vehicles to be used by document forgers/identity thieves.
I hope the SC strikes this down, but I have no faith in this Court.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
of their faculties yet.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Isn't Arizona the only state to not adopt the MLK Day Holiday? To crib a comedian I heard, just how frakkin' racist do you have to be to refuse a paid day off?
he's absolutely right. This law is so broadly written that lawsuits are going to be commonplace. Huckabee also said something similar.
I find it hysterical that a state that shut down rest areas because they don't have the money to keep them open would pass such an idiotic, draconian, wasteful law that will cost the state millions (at least).
Also the GOP was actually making inroads into the Hispanic community under Bush. But then the xenophobes took over and erased all the gains the GOP made with hispanics. This bill is the door closing on the GOP with Hispanics.
Good.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Politics is dirty. Absolutely f###ing filthy.
If the Government isn't enforcing Article 1 Section 8 "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization" and Article 4 Section 4 "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
Why can't the States use Article 1 Section 10 along with the 10th Amendment to make the law to protect their state from the people who are invading or causing domestic violence?
Comments are closed on this entry