If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Obama's lawyer farks up his argument to the Supreme Court against Arizona's immigration law so badly--even Justice Sotomayor isn't buying it   (politico.com) divider line 561
    More: Fail, Sonia Sotomayor, supreme courts, laws, obama, illegal immigration, solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, Alito  
•       •       •

18078 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2012 at 2:41 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



561 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-25 03:29:36 PM

liam76: hitlersbrain: Q: Can the State randomly hassle you because of your race for no real reason and keep you in jail for as long as they want?

Want to point me tot he section of the law that says that?


Article. Read it.
 
2012-04-25 03:30:25 PM

Joe Blowme: Hagenhatesyouall: This reminds me of a time, long ago, when another group of people in north America ignored immigration.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 334x600]

That didn't work out too well for them.

Those that ignore history, etc......

So are you saying they should have never crossed the Bering straight strait>?



FTFM
 
2012-04-25 03:30:59 PM

Beemer_Vol: Wellon Dowd but they are the government's lawyers not Obama's.

DOJ is an executive department, so yeah, they are Obama's lawyers.

Not sure if you're just trolling, uniformed, or just plain stooopid though.


With a name like Wellon Dowd, I say all three are applicable.
 
2012-04-25 03:31:37 PM

sammyk: S.B. 1070 allows local authorities to stop someone for jaywalking, if they can't prove immigration status on the spot the locals are allowed to detain that person indefinitly until that status is determined. All this without due process or a judges order. Just the hunch of a local beat cop.


And that's the only part of the law I have problems with. I don't have issues with them trying to figure out who they have in cuffs. Only that it could mean citizens are detained without trial or charge. Any possibility of racial profiling aside, it could be used as a mechanism to arrest people they otherwise wouldn't have reason to detain, you know?
 
2012-04-25 03:32:18 PM

Mildot: One would think that someone who taught Constitutional Law would understand this.

which begs the question, has anyone ever atested to being a student in one of Obama's classes?


Why is justice Stevens in that pic?
 
2012-04-25 03:32:28 PM

Kazrath:
Yeah, but you see, I don't want to deport all illegals. I am taking one out on a date this weekend.


Just tipping your gardener would have been sufficient.
 
2012-04-25 03:32:39 PM

sammyk: S.B. 1070 allows local authorities to stop someone for jaywalking, if they can't prove immigration status on the spot the locals are allowed to detain that person indefinitly until that status is determined. All this without due process or a judges order. Just the hunch of a local beat cop.


If I am stopped for jaywalking and I can't prove who I am, I am staying in jail. Does that violate due process?
 
2012-04-25 03:33:30 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: 81% of illegals come from Hispanic countries.

67% come from Mexico.

That's according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

And this is what Mexico thinks illegals look like, according to their manual on how to live in the US illegally.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x335]

But, up until the rise of MS13, the nastiest illegals in the US probably were the Russian Mafia and its associates. Their members had come up through the Soviet prison system. They really enjoyed killing people.


Imagine....the Mexican Government actively "Deporting" its own people! And the US gets blasted for having laws that every other nation on this planet have in regard to immigration

Just points out the absolute stupidity of people who support any form of Illegal Alien Amnesty
 
2012-04-25 03:33:33 PM

MaliFinn: What do people not understand about the fact that parts of America have always been brown and don't speak English as their first language?


What I find amusing, living in California, is all the people that complain about Hispanics being illegals and going back to where they came from, while living in a city called "San whatever", with an address on "Calle de whatever", etc. People just don't get that there are Hispanic families that have been here 10 generations or so.
 
2012-04-25 03:34:00 PM

DrewCurtisJr: MaliFinn: Hey officer, over here - this guy doesn't understand English and his text is black, better arrest him to be safe.

Like I said before what does that have to do with anything? Because that is a misrepresentation of the law.


The law requires people fitting the profile of illegal aliens to be detained and identified by police. Relax, you have nothing to worry about. Nobody would mistake you for someone clever enough to be in the country illegally.
 
2012-04-25 03:34:12 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: But, up until the rise of MS13, the nastiest illegals in the US probably were the Russian Mafia and its associates. Their members had come up through the Soviet prison system. They really enjoyed killing people.


That's sort of how it was with MS13, too. MS13 got it's start in the California penal system and a bunch of people who were seeking refuge from one of those central American civil wars came ot the US illegally and got busted. While in the prison system, they formed gangs to survive and when they were all deported, they used what they learned in prison to form the MS13 we all know.

MS13 is f*cking psychotic. they definitely give the Russian mafia a run for it's money in terms of love of killing.
 
2012-04-25 03:34:14 PM

Aarontology: UCFRoadWarrior: You know the anti-SB 1070 crowd is farked......when the Supreme Court Justice who is a member of the Pro-Illegal Alien/Hispano-Racist group LA RAZA (The Race) is even criticizing the argument of the Pro-Illegal Alien Obama attorney.

Priceless...

Cannot wait to see the spin from the Pro-Illegal Alien crowd. The White Guilt Liberal ButtHurt will be oozing out like the creme filling of a crushed Oreo

Here is why SB 1070 is upheld:

States enforce Fed law everyday. SB 1070 just enhances the enforcement of Fed law

All LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who are NOT CITIZENS must always carry their Alien Resident card (the old Green Card) at all times. This canard of "asking every Latino for papers" is BS...since by Fed law Legal Immigrants must always have their "Green Card" on them....that is Federal Law

It is illegal to be in this country ILLEGALLY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------

AND, a ruling in favor of SB 1070 is gonna provide more Liberal ButtHurt because Obama's case against Sheriff Joe Arpaio gets super-weak (already is weak).

It was a bad day for bigots. You support Illegal Alien Amnesty...you are an Anti-American Bigot. This LEGAL IMMIGRANT and now US CITIZEN can smile today. Suck It LA RAZA, MEChA, Libs

It's like a WND link and a Brietbart link had a night of sweaty shameful sex behind a dumpster and gave birth to this post.



BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh FFS, that was pretty dern funny
 
2012-04-25 03:34:33 PM
I wonder what kind of precedent will be set and how much power states will have. Probably gonna be a bad thing.
 
2012-04-25 03:34:34 PM

Wellon Dowd: I realize this is a subtle point that will elude the submitter, but they are the government's lawyers not Obama's.


Actually, Verelli is one of the RIAA's lawyers. He's much more convincing when he's prosecuting against college kids.
 
2012-04-25 03:34:54 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: predict a number of stops for unsignaled lane changes and seatbelt violations are in Arizona's future.


Well, they would be valid stops, then.
 
2012-04-25 03:37:03 PM

zinethar: DROxINxTHExWIND: predict a number of stops for "unsignaled lane changes" and "seatbelt violations" are in Arizona's future.

Well, they would be valid stops, then.


Fixed it for him.
 
2012-04-25 03:38:26 PM

Felgraf: GORDON: ps69: Small government freedom loving liberty supporters want to give the state power to stop and detain you for the crime of not having your papers.

Because the freedoms? And the liberty? And the baby jesus and aborted baby fetuses. Also the gay and tricorner hats.

You've perfectly encapsulated the unrealistic caracature that the extreme left has for everyone who doesn't vote, as they see it, the "correct way."

Congratulations for being a fascist. Nothing is more important to your perception of reality than your political ideology, and you are willing to dehumanize as many people as you need to to get your point across. Again, congratulations.

... And supporting a law that allows people to be arrested for not having an ID on them *isn't* fascist?


Fascism is making comments on fark that point out the hypocrisy of small government conservatives. Being an actual fascist has nothing to do with it.
 
2012-04-25 03:38:26 PM

Aarontology: This is true too, but because of the subjective nature it would be relatively easy for a cop to simply say "Nope. Not buying it. You're staying"

Of course, they can do that with a lot of laws on the books already.


Well, that's the thing: if you look Asian/Black/whatever, and claim your name is John Smith, and you're adopted, that's plausible. That kind of thing happens. It's even possible that you look white as a lily and your name is Ichiro Tanaka, son of a half-Japanese father and a Norweigan mother, named after your paternal grandfather. Officer Skeptical has to actually check your name with someone, probably in conjunction with your address. If those match up, it is unreasonable for the officer to assume you're lying without other articulatable reasons.

"Not buying it" doesn't make the cut if Officer Skeptical can't articulate why in terms that suggest reasoning is occurring.

And for this reason, I support all police officers and most other government employees that deal with the public to wear body audio/video recorders and the recording to be releasable, uneditted, to any person they come in contact with, for the period of their interaction. I'm not doing the he said, she said thing. If there's a conflicting story and no other corroborating evidence, I'm going to assume that the government is making it up.
 
2012-04-25 03:39:16 PM
img713.imageshack.us

/excited I can use this again so soon
//1 of the 68%!!!
///!!!
 
2012-04-25 03:39:41 PM

MaliFinn: DrewCurtisJr: MaliFinn: Hey officer, over here - this guy doesn't understand English and his text is black, better arrest him to be safe.

Like I said before what does that have to do with anything? Because that is a misrepresentation of the law.

The law requires people fitting the profile of illegal aliens to be detained and identified by police. Relax, you have nothing to worry about. Nobody would mistake you for someone clever enough to be in the country illegally.


Wrong.
 
2012-04-25 03:40:35 PM

Nabb1: hdhale: cman: The decision has already been cast.

The justices will vote along the lines of their political ideology and we the American people take the dick up the ass again

Which raises a point.

Somewhere along the way the members of the Supreme Court went from being relatively (or in some cases extreme) independent thinkers to being nothing more than political ideologues and no better than the any other politicians. The US government no longer even pretends to be live up to the standards laid down when the Constitution was written. Now it's all about Right vs. Left, might makes right, and common sense left on the last bus out of town. Pathetic.

When was this Golden Age of the apolitical Judiciary? There have always been ideological splits on the Court and highly politicized Justices. Some even criticized Marbury v, Madison as a "political" decision. FDR got so fed up with the Supreme Court that he tried - and failed - to get Congress to raise the number of Justices to 13 so he could hand pick a majority that suited his political ambitions.


I should imagine that McCulloch v. Maryland was decried even more than Marbury v. Madison as being political. Not only was McCulloch about Federal supremacy over state sovereignty, but it dealt with the highly controversial national bank. Meanwhile, Marbury had something for both sides, with Marshall going on and on about how Madison had no authority to refuse to seal and issue Marbury's commission that had been granted by outgoing President Adams --- but none of that matters and is just dicta, because Article III of the Constitution denies the Supreme Court's subject matter jurisdiction and the statute which purported to grant jurisdiction to the Supreme Court is thus unconstitutional and, oh, by the way, the Supreme Court has the inherent power to declare laws unconstitutional and thus void - but we don't have the power to power to hear this case as a trial court.
 
2012-04-25 03:40:47 PM

plausdeny: And for this reason, I support all police officers and most other government employees that deal with the public to wear body audio/video recorders and the recording to be releasable, uneditted, to any person they come in contact with, for the period of their interaction. I'm not doing the he said, she said thing. If there's a conflicting story and no other corroborating evidence, I'm going to assume that the government is making it up.


I completely support this idea.
 
2012-04-25 03:40:54 PM

UCFRoadWarrior: You know the anti-SB 1070 crowd is farked......when the Supreme Court Justice who is a member of the Pro-Illegal Alien/Hispano-Racist group LA RAZA (The Race) is even criticizing the argument of the Pro-Illegal Alien Obama attorney.

Priceless...

Cannot wait to see the spin from the Pro-Illegal Alien crowd. The White Guilt Liberal ButtHurt will be oozing out like the creme filling of a crushed Oreo

Here is why SB 1070 is upheld:

States enforce Fed law everyday. SB 1070 just enhances the enforcement of Fed law

All LEGAL IMMIGRANTS who are NOT CITIZENS must always carry their Alien Resident card (the old Green Card) at all times. This canard of "asking every Latino for papers" is BS...since by Fed law Legal Immigrants must always have their "Green Card" on them....that is Federal Law

It is illegal to be in this country ILLEGALLY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------

AND, a ruling in favor of SB 1070 is gonna provide more Liberal ButtHurt because Obama's case against Sheriff Joe Arpaio gets super-weak (already is weak).

It was a bad day for bigots. You support Illegal Alien Amnesty...you are an Anti-American Bigot. This LEGAL IMMIGRANT and now US CITIZEN can smile today. Suck It LA RAZA, MEChA, Libs


Is it illegal to be a citzen without papers? It will be, thanks to folks like you. Welcome to USSR. Vere are your papers?
 
2012-04-25 03:41:26 PM
i224.photobucket.com

Our governor is just giddy with anticipation over this decision.
 
2012-04-25 03:41:41 PM

UCFRoadWarrior: TheShavingofOccam123: 81% of illegals come from Hispanic countries.

67% come from Mexico.

That's according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

And this is what Mexico thinks illegals look like, according to their manual on how to live in the US illegally.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x335]

But, up until the rise of MS13, the nastiest illegals in the US probably were the Russian Mafia and its associates. Their members had come up through the Soviet prison system. They really enjoyed killing people.

Imagine....the Mexican Government actively "Deporting" its own people! And the US gets blasted for having laws that every other nation on this planet have in regard to immigration

Just points out the absolute stupidity of people who support any form of Illegal Alien Amnesty


What if you considered them refugees from nation that's lost its control over waring drug cartels, as Mexico has?

I doubt that'll change your hardline opinions but let's just see where this takes us. . .
 
2012-04-25 03:41:54 PM

jabelar: MaliFinn: What do people not understand about the fact that parts of America have always been brown and don't speak English as their first language?

What I find amusing, living in California, is all the people that complain about Hispanics being illegals and going back to where they came from, while living in a city called "San whatever", with an address on "Calle de whatever", etc. People just don't get that there are Hispanic families that have been here 10 generations or so.


They're still here legally..
 
2012-04-25 03:42:01 PM

MaliFinn: The law requires people fitting the profile of illegal aliens to be detained and identified by police.


And to you that means not understanding English?

Relax, you have nothing to worry about. Nobody would mistake you for someone clever enough to be in the country illegally.

You consider riding 25 deep the back of a trailer with no air, food, or water, clever? Figures, you can barely read. Don't get your feelings hurt because someone called you out on your BS you read on some blog. Read the actual law.
 
2012-04-25 03:42:17 PM

Rich Cream: [img713.imageshack.us image 450x327]

/excited I can use this again so soon
//1 of the 68%!!!
///!!!


You sound excited! I hope it all works out for you!
 
2012-04-25 03:42:34 PM

liam76: Citrate1007: Guilty until proven innocent. You gotta love the SCOTUS we currently have. Even the "liberal" ones are more conservative than Mitt Romney.

No.

IUf you commit acrime you are going to have to prove you are who you say you are. You don;t get a pass now just because you are illegal.


But in AZ, you won't need to commit a crime to be checked for your papers; You just need to be brown.
 
2012-04-25 03:43:22 PM

Theaetetus: "It seems an odd argument to say the federal agency has to answer the state's question, but the state can't ask it," Roberts said.

"..." Thomas added.

"We're not saying a state can't ask it in any individual case," Verrilli replied. He said the systematic, "locked-in" order to check deprives individual officers of discretion to cooperate with federal enforcement priorities.

"That's what I can't understand," Alito said.

"..." Thomas mused.

Despite her other concerns about the Arizona law, Sotomayor quickly chimed in to say she, too, was baffled.

"I'm terribly confused by your answer. OK? And I don't know that you're focusing in on what my colleagues are trying to get to," she said.

Chiming in, Thomas stated, "..."

Verrilli then said the mandatory-check provision could lead to "harassment" of people because of their background.

"We are not making an allegation of racial profiling," Verrilli said, adding a short time later, "You have a population in Arizona of 2 million Latinos, of whom 400,000 at most are there unlawfully."

"Sounds like racial profiling to me," Scalia quickly interjected, taking Verrilli to task for making an argument he'd sworn off earlier.

"Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here?" Scalia asked skeptically.

Thomas appeared to agree, noting, "..."

When Verrilli later tried to explain why systematic checking was objectionable, but "ad hoc" checks were not, Sotomayor again stepped in.

"You can see it's not selling very well. Why don't you try to come up with something else?" she said.

"..." Thomas quipped.


It's funny because it's true.
 
2012-04-25 03:44:16 PM

thetubameister: liam76: Citrate1007: Guilty until proven innocent. You gotta love the SCOTUS we currently have. Even the "liberal" ones are more conservative than Mitt Romney.

No.

IUf you commit acrime you are going to have to prove you are who you say you are. You don;t get a pass now just because you are illegal.

But in AZ, you won't need to commit a crime to be checked for your papers; You just need to be brown.


Wrong, where do you idiots get this shiat?
 
2012-04-25 03:44:42 PM

thetubameister: Is it illegal to be a citzen without papers? It will be, thanks to folks like you. Welcome to USSR. Vere are your papers?


If you have a problem with this, maybe you should move somewhere that has an open immigration policy.

Like Somalia.
 
2012-04-25 03:46:33 PM
However, during oral arguments Wednesday, the court's liberal justices and some of its conservatives expressed concern that holding people who have been arrested until a check of their immigration status is complete could violate their rights by prolonging their detention.

Just do it while you're strip searching them. Kill two birds with one stone.
 
2012-04-25 03:48:02 PM

thetubameister: But in AZ, you won't need to commit a crime to be checked for your papers; You just need to be brown.


your ignorance is showing.
 
2012-04-25 03:48:10 PM

Theaetetus: "It seems an odd argument to say the federal agency has to answer the state's question, but the state can't ask it," Roberts said.

"..." Thomas added.

"We're not saying a state can't ask it in any individual case," Verrilli replied. He said the systematic, "locked-in" order to check deprives individual officers of discretion to cooperate with federal enforcement priorities.

"That's what I can't understand," Alito said.

"..." Thomas mused.

Despite her other concerns about the Arizona law, Sotomayor quickly chimed in to say she, too, was baffled.

"I'm terribly confused by your answer. OK? And I don't know that you're focusing in on what my colleagues are trying to get to," she said.

Chiming in, Thomas stated, "..."

Verrilli then said the mandatory-check provision could lead to "harassment" of people because of their background.

"We are not making an allegation of racial profiling," Verrilli said, adding a short time later, "You have a population in Arizona of 2 million Latinos, of whom 400,000 at most are there unlawfully."

"Sounds like racial profiling to me," Scalia quickly interjected, taking Verrilli to task for making an argument he'd sworn off earlier.

"Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here?" Scalia asked skeptically.

Thomas appeared to agree, noting, "..."

When Verrilli later tried to explain why systematic checking was objectionable, but "ad hoc" checks were not, Sotomayor again stepped in.

"You can see it's not selling very well. Why don't you try to come up with something else?" she said.

"..." Thomas quipped.


Racist.
 
2012-04-25 03:48:12 PM

HopScotchNSoda: Nabb1: hdhale: cman: The decision has already been cast.

The justices will vote along the lines of their political ideology and we the American people take the dick up the ass again

Which raises a point.

Somewhere along the way the members of the Supreme Court went from being relatively (or in some cases extreme) independent thinkers to being nothing more than political ideologues and no better than the any other politicians. The US government no longer even pretends to be live up to the standards laid down when the Constitution was written. Now it's all about Right vs. Left, might makes right, and common sense left on the last bus out of town. Pathetic.

When was this Golden Age of the apolitical Judiciary? There have always been ideological splits on the Court and highly politicized Justices. Some even criticized Marbury v, Madison as a "political" decision. FDR got so fed up with the Supreme Court that he tried - and failed - to get Congress to raise the number of Justices to 13 so he could hand pick a majority that suited his political ambitions.

I should imagine that McCulloch v. Maryland was decried even more than Marbury v. Madison as being political. Not only was McCulloch about Federal supremacy over state sovereignty, but it dealt with the highly controversial national bank. Meanwhile, Marbury had something for both sides, with Marshall going on and on about how Madison had no authority to refuse to seal and issue Marbury's commission that had been granted by outgoing President Adams --- but none of that matters and is just dicta, because Article III of the Constitution denies the Supreme Court's subject matter jurisdiction and the statute which purported to grant jurisdiction to the Supreme Court is thus unconstitutional and, oh, by the way, the Supreme Court has the inherent power to declare laws unconstitutional and thus void - but we don't have the power to power to hear this case as a trial court.


Good point, but most people don't hear about McCulloch unless they've studied law or the history of US jurisprudence or something. They teach kids about Marbury in junior high school history classes.
 
2012-04-25 03:48:14 PM
Justice Elena Kagan, the former U.S. solicitor general, recused herself from the case.

Ah, so this is the time to follow the law and recuse.
 
2012-04-25 03:48:29 PM

404 page not found: Rich Cream: [img713.imageshack.us image 450x327]

/excited I can use this again so soon
//1 of the 68%!!!
///!!!

You sound excited! I hope it all works out for you!



!!!
 
2012-04-25 03:48:50 PM

Bllasae: AmazinTim: rmoody: Fark this worthless country.

Here's the door, don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.

Good. Time to take this country back. And for those of you complaining about the law and/or the country, love it or leave it.


Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.
 
2012-04-25 03:49:19 PM

Joe Blowme: thetubameister: liam76: Citrate1007: Guilty until proven innocent. You gotta love the SCOTUS we currently have. Even the "liberal" ones are more conservative than Mitt Romney.

No.

IUf you commit acrime you are going to have to prove you are who you say you are. You don;t get a pass now just because you are illegal.

But in AZ, you won't need to commit a crime to be checked for your papers; You just need to be brown.

Wrong, where do you idiots get this shiat?


Seriously! I mean, that's not how the law was written. Lord knows the cops would never abuse their authority. Every good cop carries a throwaway.
 
2012-04-25 03:49:24 PM

Joe Blowme: thetubameister: liam76: Citrate1007: Guilty until proven innocent. You gotta love the SCOTUS we currently have. Even the "liberal" ones are more conservative than Mitt Romney.

No.

IUf you commit acrime you are going to have to prove you are who you say you are. You don;t get a pass now just because you are illegal.

But in AZ, you won't need to commit a crime to be checked for your papers; You just need to be brown.

Wrong, where do you idiots get this shiat?


Several Examples in this article as well as links to other articles with more examples.

Where do idiots like you get off thinking that pure denial trumps truth?
 
2012-04-25 03:53:52 PM
Pretty much every other country actively defends is sovereignty, why shouldn't the US do the same?
 
2012-04-25 03:54:31 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Theaetetus: "It seems an odd argument to say the federal agency has to answer the state's question, but the state can't ask it," Roberts said.

"..." Thomas added.

"We're not saying a state can't ask it in any individual case," Verrilli replied. He said the systematic, "locked-in" order to check deprives individual officers of discretion to cooperate with federal enforcement priorities.

"That's what I can't understand," Alito said.

"..." Thomas mused.

Despite her other concerns about the Arizona law, Sotomayor quickly chimed in to say she, too, was baffled.

"I'm terribly confused by your answer. OK? And I don't know that you're focusing in on what my colleagues are trying to get to," she said.

Chiming in, Thomas stated, "..."

Verrilli then said the mandatory-check provision could lead to "harassment" of people because of their background.

"We are not making an allegation of racial profiling," Verrilli said, adding a short time later, "You have a population in Arizona of 2 million Latinos, of whom 400,000 at most are there unlawfully."

"Sounds like racial profiling to me," Scalia quickly interjected, taking Verrilli to task for making an argument he'd sworn off earlier.

"Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here?" Scalia asked skeptically.

Thomas appeared to agree, noting, "..."

When Verrilli later tried to explain why systematic checking was objectionable, but "ad hoc" checks were not, Sotomayor again stepped in.

"You can see it's not selling very well. Why don't you try to come up with something else?" she said.

"..." Thomas quipped.

Racist.


Racist.

I'm not saying you're a racist.

Racist.

I'm not saying you're a racist.

Racist.

/FIFY
 
2012-04-25 03:54:35 PM

GAT_00: What is it with Justice lawyers screwing up in front of the court?


Not just in front of the Surpeme Court. It took them two tries to get Blago and look at he wasted effort on Bonds , Clements and Lance Armstrong.

Disappoint

3.bp.blogspot.com

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Tell you what we're gonna do. We're gonna sit right here and talk about it. Now if you get tired of talking here, Mr. Marshal Elving Patrick there will hand you one of them subpoenas he's got stuck down in his pocket and we'll go downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury... Elliot? Jim?... Fine. All right, Elving, hand whichever one of these fellas you like a subpoena and we'll go on downstairs and talk in front of the grand jury.

District Attorney James A. Quinn: Gallagher's a government witness.

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Wonderful thing, a subpoena.

----------------------------------------------------

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You had a leak? You call what's goin' on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this, Noah built hisself a boat.

-------------------------------------------------------

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.

-----------------------------------------


James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: What'd you figure you'd do after government service, Elliott?

Elliott Rosen: I'm not quitting.

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You ain't no Presidential appointee, Elliott. One that hired you is me. You got thirty days.
 
2012-04-25 03:54:48 PM

umad: thetubameister: Is it illegal to be a citzen without papers? It will be, thanks to folks like you. Welcome to USSR. Vere are your papers?

If you have a problem with this, maybe you should move somewhere that has an open immigration policy.

Like Somalia.


I take it that you are a libertarian who believes that Somalia is the world's shining example of how zero government works which is why you've suggested that thetubameister moves there, right?
 
2012-04-25 03:55:10 PM

thetubameister: liam76: Citrate1007: Guilty until proven innocent. You gotta love the SCOTUS we currently have. Even the "liberal" ones are more conservative than Mitt Romney.

No.

IUf you commit acrime you are going to have to prove you are who you say you are. You don;t get a pass now just because you are illegal.

But in AZ, you won't need to commit a crime to be checked for your papers; You just need to be brown.


No.
 
2012-04-25 03:55:16 PM

DrewCurtisJr: MaliFinn: The law requires people fitting the profile of illegal aliens to be detained and identified by police.

And to you that means not understanding English?

Relax, you have nothing to worry about. Nobody would mistake you for someone clever enough to be in the country illegally.

You consider riding 25 deep the back of a trailer with no air, food, or water, clever? Figures, you can barely read. Don't get your feelings hurt because someone called you out on your BS you read on some blog. Read the actual law.


How about I start with reading the first paragraph of the article:

"the state overreached its authority by requiring local police to check the immigration status of people suspected of being in the country illegally"
 
2012-04-25 03:55:31 PM

UCFRoadWarrior: salvador.hardin: Oh super, another hot-button issue before the court to drag in the casuals who don't understand how oral arguments work.

Its an adversarial process with exceptional grilling by the justices to burn away extraneous arguments and get to the absolute heart of the issues. The level of hostility and general content of questioning has proven, over time, to be an absolutely useless indicator of outcome. As some have noted, basic political allegiance is far more predictive, and the court is currently split 4 to 4 with Kennedy straddling the line

The only kind of rank speculation that anyone can make about any decision of this court and expect to have odds on their side is that it will be a 5-4 outcome.

If not for the nut jobs at WND, Townhall, and Free Republic, the hack-journalism of Politico would not be taken seriously.

Interesting....is that all news sources, both left and right, mainstream and alternative, are pretty much saying that the Obama Admin got whacked.


So the Media is accurate now that its saying something you want to hear? The media is a profit-making enterprise (liberal, conservative, mainstream, and alternative). Their profits do not come from delivering news to consumers, it comes from harvesting consumers' eyeballs and sell them to advertisers. The best bait for eyeballs is controversy, and "prediction" is their favorite packaging for that bait. They are incapable of communicating nuance which makes them completely ineffective in reporting on judicial decision making.

The unanimity of the media is proof of the profitable angle on this story, not the truth of it.
 
2012-04-25 03:55:39 PM

UCFRoadWarrior: thesarus


Can you SPELL Thesaurus?
 
2012-04-25 03:56:29 PM

AllUpInYa: Pretty much every other country actively defends is sovereignty, why shouldn't the US do the same?


Hispandering and influence from corporatist lobbies.
 
Displayed 50 of 561 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report