The American Spectator

Kylie Estwick| 5.17.10 @ 6:29AM

Ken Blackwell quoting a liberal blog and Dick "Vice President isnt part of the executive branch" Cheney to make a position against Kagan?
Many people share her views.
And in answer to your final question, you seem to have forgotten what ACLU stands for. In this era of racial profiling in Arizona, legislation in states to keep people from marrying, waterboarding and illegal detainment; YES we need someone who is more interested in CIVIL LIBERTIES.

It amazes me to listen to the Tea Baggers whine about government intervention in their lives, only to turn around and want to persecute everyone who disagrees with them (examples above).
Estranged from America? We now have elected Republican leaders who believe it is "right and just" to stop innocent people on the street who "look hispanic". If anyone is estranged from America (and common sense) it's the tea baggers and their hate inspired politics. Good luck with that.

drudge ette obama| 5.17.10 @ 7:09AM

I am interested in your opinion on keeping military recruiters off college campuses, then I am interested in your opinion of Kagan after she caved when federal dollars were to be withheld.

Do you think that there should be no restrictions on marriage? What do you think about Obama and his A.G. Holder's relaxation on Miranda Rights in extreme danger circumstances? And who has been illegally detained? What are you talking about?

Finally, the term tea baggers is not a proper noun, so get rid of the capitalization. Crudity is still protected speech, but not preferred. Bon chance.

drudge ette obama| 5.17.10 @ 7:11AM

Any Senator who votes for this slug gets no money from me. That includes Georgia's Saxby Chambliss who is starting to look weak.

sleepy| 5.19.10 @ 3:54PM

I agree with you. I cannot believe anyone who believes in freedom of speech, life and liberty would vote for her.
I cannot believe she believes in anti - second amendment, anti-constitution, banning books, military and abortion issues. If she gets confirmed, it is all over as a free country, because she will make decisions based on personal politics, preferences, or what’s in the nominee’s 'heart, and what Obama wants to achieve. Very scary.

Rob Roosa| 5.20.10 @ 8:39AM

What is stated here is exactly what these people want. I am amazed at the ignorance of the human race. Greed and control are the two main factors in our thought process. These two factors are what have brought down all the major powers (Greeks, Romans, Germans etc.) since the beginning of time. Life is extremely simple; we are the ones that complicate it. Its all about choice and responding to each situation with ability(Responsibility); we refuse to accept or take responsibility for our actions. When are we going to wake up??????

Melvin| 5.17.10 @ 7:45AM

Please, give an example in how the law is written in AZ, that legally allows law enforcement to pull people over solely based on the color of ones skin color.

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 9:34AM

Are you purposely being dumb? Of course, the law doesn't say pulling people over for skin color is legal.

But which one of you thinks that the law was meant to stop Polish illegals or Russian illegals from living in the US?

With the preponderance of the illegals in the Border States being of Hispanic, and of them primarily Mexican immigrants, anyone can easily imagine who the law is targeting.

The law says if someone is detained for any reason on suspicion of law breaking, it is the duty of the police to ask for the party to identify themselves (citizenship papers), if the police believe they may be an illegal immigrant. And, if you are an Hispanic in Arizona, tell me that any of you can't imagine that happening? If any police believe as you all do, they surely will ask for papers.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is right, stay out of Arizona! It's 1930's Germany all over again.

1FreeMan| 5.17.10 @ 9:56AM

Pay no attention to the purpleguy folks. He is a new comer on this site and just calls names. Purple has distorted facts, out right lied and tried to rewrite history pretending to be an expert.

Purple is lost in his own little world.

Nick| 5.17.10 @ 1:00PM

1FreeMan,

Agreed.

PurpleJackass, also, thinks that John Marshall was the first chief justice of the Supreme Court. What a moron!

And, he doesn't know the difference between "precedents" and "precedence", because he is a dope.

Why do you keep coming back here to TAS, just to embarrass yourself, PurpleJackass?

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 3:48PM

First important Chief Justice, yes ... " In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice. The three previous chief justices had left little permanent mark beyond setting up the forms of office. The Supreme Court, like the state supreme courts, was a minor organ of government. In his 34-year tenure, Marshall made it a third co-equal branch, which it remains today." Feel better, nit picker....?

Nick| 5.17.10 @ 4:20PM

That's not what you wrote, PurpleJackass.
Nice try.

You stated that Mr. Marshall was the FIRST chief justice of the Supreme Court. Your knowledge of history and the Constitution stinks.

You also used the word "precedence", when you meant "precedents", twit.

You have claimed, falsely, that President Bush was in office for TEN months when the attacks of September 11th, 2001, occured.

You also didn't know that Virginia governors cannot run for a second consecutive term. Nor, did you check your own misspelling of "hypocrite", as you berated someone else for misspelling "hypocrisy", thus making you a hypocrite.

You are an ignorant fool.
So, I ask again, why do you keep coming back for this punishment?

Nick| 5.17.10 @ 4:29PM

Since you forgot what you wrote, PurpleJackass, here it is, in all its stupendous ignorance:

"John Marshall, you mean THE John Marshall that was the first Supreme Court Chief Justice?"

JimE| 5.17.10 @ 6:40PM

PLEASE NOTE THAT PURPLETARD IS A PAID WHO ONLY APPEARS TROLL WHEN ONE OF OBAMA'S POLICIES ARE QUESTIONED.HE NEVER VARIES FROM THE WHITEHOUSE LINE OF PROPAGANDA.

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 3:49PM

I am rubber, you are glue ... you know the rest ...

Rmm| 5.18.10 @ 9:58AM

1FreeMan,
Purple Guy is no newcomer, you apparently haven't caught some of his 'progressive' tilt before.

Tom| 5.17.10 @ 10:13AM

Purpleguy,
Have you ever been interviewed by the police? They always ask for ID. Get pulled over, produce a license. Be the suspect of a crime show your license.

Yes, the law was aimed primarily at Mexican immigrants, some of which are whiter than I am by the way. The reason for this is that is the group that presents the problem in Arizona. So what? Any legal immigrant has the documentation necessary to avoid any legal action, documentation which they are required to carry with them at all times, and those that are here illegally are here ILLEGALLY.

You do know what happened in Nazi Germany in the 30's? Or are you really so ignorant to believe deportation of illegal immigrants is tantamount to what happened to the Jews under Hitler?

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 11:17AM

Kylie is correct in most of what they said. In addition, this law violates the 14th Amendment and the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Which by the way the Constitution says "persons" not "citizens". You know what those Amendments say, right?

It holds for anyone in the United States, period. Illegals, terrorists, Hitler - anyone. Unless that is, you want to break the LAW of the LAND.

If you read SB1070, you can be pulled aside for any suspicion that involves law breaking (broken taillight, jaywalking, loitering, etc. that are hardly any violent crimes that WE all could be guilty of at some time in our lives)

Read the damn bill:

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

And:

"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."

Sooo, when you take all the FACTS into consideration, this is a ridiculous, racist law, that illegally targets a group of people for "Special Treatment". For cripe's sake, if they can't patrol the damn border, how the hell can they patrol the whole state?

The reference to Nazi Germany was in reference to the "papers please" aspect of the law. No one traveling in Occupied Europe could go anywhere without their papers. And, in Arizona, you better have them if you cross the border into Arizona.
Of course, there is no parallel to the Holocaust here - and that was a stupid comment, IMHO.

Y'all forget that what the Government is allowed to do to one group of people, they can do to any other. Are you so smug, you don't think the Government will ever target you? You betcha they can, if you let them target ANY GROUP. Are you sure they're not monitoring the Tea Baggers? Are you sure they're not monitoring this site? Are you sure they're not watching you?

Upholding the protections of the Constitution, protects everyone - even if you find it distasteful. As in Free Speech protections, we have the right to say what we will, with very few limitations. And we defend that right, even if we don't like what we're hearing. It is the same, exactly. You protect one, you protect them all. Period. Get on board - if you read the damn bill, you will.

Bydand76| 5.17.10 @ 12:12PM

Purple,
Here is the 14th Amendment.
Read it before you open your silly mouth and understand what it says before you make yourself look like a bigger idiot than you already are!

Section. 1. All persons BORN or NATURALIZED in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Section 1 is important here because the AZ law does not deny the illegal immigrant anything! It simply says you cannot be in The United States ILLEGALLY!!! The illegal immigrant STILL receives due process of the law. They are arrested and then sent back to their country of origin. That is it! Furthermore, a valid argument could be made that supports the position that the AZ law defends the citizens of the state in their rights)

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Kylie and you are incorrect. You can be pulled over for anything right now! All this bill does is gives local law enforcment the ability to deal with illegal immigration. Thats it, period, end of subject!

Quit trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 12:59PM

You made my point for me .. thanks ... Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says it all, citizen and non-citizen alike.

But first of all, you forgot the Fourth Amendment, which reads:
"The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and their PERSONS or things to be seized." Note the use of People or Persons, not "citizens".

Of course you're right about the 14th Amendment as to how it applies to "citizens" :

Section. 1. All persons BORN or NATURALIZED in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

But Section 1 continues with:
" nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That includes everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike.

This AZ law selects out a special group for different treatment under the law, and that is illegal, plain and simple.

What would stop a state from singling out Tea Baggers for special treatment, otherwise? Would you be in favor of THAT law, that says you are breaking the law for advocating restricting the Government's powers by overthrowing the "bums"? Remember, it's the act of being an unlawful immigrant you object to in Arizona, right? not that they are immigrants, correct?

Bydand76| 5.17.10 @ 1:49PM

Purple,

I fail to see how I am proving your point at all.
You are missing the underlying overall point.

The AZ law does not infringe upon any PERSONS right to due process.
Upon being arrested the offending person is simply being treated as a citizen would be. You cannot have two differentiating standards.

To say that you cannot have a law that targets a specific group is anathema to legal precident. Think of child molesters for a second. They are a specific group of society that has laws specifically targeted at them.

Now I am not comparing illegal immigrants to child molesters or anything like that but what I am saying is that fundamentally the AZ upholds due process. If a person is here illegally then they are in breach of the law to begin with. Therefore they are subject to the penalties forthwith. That is the whole purpose of the law to begin with!

Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.
If you say that the AZ law is unconstitutional because it targets "persons"who are in breach of federal law to begin with you are skating awfully close to a wierd legal paradox.

Judicial precedent does not support your position in any case.

If this was the case what would stop drug dealers from forming a union? Or any criminal element. Preposterous right?

Although, I guess you could make an argument for RICO but, I am not too sure that RICO targets a specific group. More like a groups activity and in this case that is highly relevant. Because that is exactly what the AZ law does and THAT is completly constitutional!

In any case. The AZ law does not deny life, liberty or property to the illegal immigrant. All it does is detains them and then sends them back to their country of origin. Thats it.

I fail to see how the ammendment pertains to them in this context.

I already addressed your 4th ammendment argument. The 4th has no bearing in this matter because of this right here.
"unreasonable searches and seizures"
If the illegal immigrant is here in this country then law enforcment is well within their mandate to stop and arrest them. They are here illegally!
Therefore, the officer has "probable cause".

Not only that but if you look at section 1 it clearly states "nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This spells it out without any equivication.

They are being afforded the full protection of the law. But they are also being constricted by it as well. They cannot point to legalities to justify their own breaking of the law they seek to defend themselves with.

What about the citizens of AZ though? Their rights are being violated by the illegal immigrant being there ILLEGALLY. Where is your supporting argument for that? I have yet to hear someone on the left defend the people of AZ.

Sorry, but your position is flawed.

Pro Libertate!

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 2:27PM

"I fail to see how I am proving your point at all." Of course you do, because you are obviously willing to suspend the Constitution's protections when YOU think it is warranted. That is the problem.. It's not up to YOU or Arizona. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution tells us that.

"The AZ law does not infringe upon any PERSONS right to due process." - not my point anyway. It's protection from being stopped illegally that is in violation.

"Upon being arrested the offending person is simply being treated as a citizen would be. " - that IS my point. It is illegal for anyone, citizen and non-citizen alike. It violates the Founders' intent to deny to the Government the Power of the King to stop anyone, anytime, for any reason (unlawful of course, * snark*).

"To say that you cannot have a law that targets a specific group is anathema to legal precident. Think of child molesters for a second. They are a specific group of society that has laws specifically targeted at them." - not according to race, religion, gender ... the AZ law says that, but in practice, do you really think the blue eyed, blond haired will be asked "papers please" ...

"If the illegal immigrant is here in this country then law enforcment is well within their mandate to stop and arrest them. They are here illegally!
Therefore, the officer has "probable cause"." Really? How do they "know" they are illegal? By their shoes, their dress, their car ? Or more likely, by their "Look"... Even the Governor of AZ couldn't answer that one.

Remember Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " So much for the AZ citizenry having security or liberty.

"Not only that but if you look at section 1 it clearly states "nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This spells it out without any equivication." - Again, that makes my point ... Equal protection would require all people, illegal, legal, all colors to be treated equally. By the very fact that you cannot tell that someone is "legal" without actually seeing their papers, and that is debatable since forgery is common, it does focus the enforcement on to certain people, that by and large, will not be illegals.

Sorry, but my position is and will be supported in the Courts. The States cannot just do whatever the hell they like. Go protect the border, fine, but stop the " illegal search and seizure". Oh, and you think no illegal immigrant owns any property that would be seized if they are sent back? Really?

And, what about the ever present mistakes that would send innocent Hispanics back to Mexico, if their "papers" are not in order ...

Do you really believe the Government is perfect in it's execution of the law? If so, you must be a Socialist or Communist...

Bydand76| 5.17.10 @ 4:15PM

Whatever, Purple.

The whole thing that sticks in your throat is race. You obviously are hung up on that but if you had read the bill like you claimed you have then you would have read the part where they wrote in there that race cannot be used as a factor. What if the problem was with white Canadiens? I know I would'nt care. They would still be illegal.

I am sorry Purple but you are wrong, wrong, wrong, and so wrong about the courts not upholding the law.
It was drafted by constitutional scholars specifically to withstand legal scrutiny.

The two contentious provisions -- that make it a requirement that an alien register with the government and then carry their paperwork with them at all times -- those have both been federal law since 1940. It's not like it resembles the federal law, it augments the current code -- they're actually giving the U.S. code citations in the law so you can quit with the ACLU talking points now. Not to mention that the law affords every possible protection, not least of which are protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Illegals immigrants owning property notwithstanding. If an illegal immigrant enters into a contractual agreement, it is still a contract that has to be adhered to right?

As far as your absurd comment on the civilian population holding the police accountable? I have no idea what you are talking about as far as that is concerned. I thought there was already a considerable amount of civilian oversight of local law enforcment?
I would suggest talking to a police officer from time to time Purple before you continue to make assumptions. Maybe talk to one from AZ? You might be suprised at what you find out.

I also do not support suspending anything from the constitution. I am simply arguing previous case law and what has already been decided by previous courts.
And no I do not think government is perfect in anything. I would have thought you knew that by now?
I also think that you do not have a clear understanding of the relationship between the States and Federal goverment. Again, do some homework.

You said:
"what about the ever present mistakes that would send innocent Hispanics back to Mexico, if their "papers" are not in order ... "

This actually is a fair point. I would agree that the room for error IS exponentially increased with the enforcment of this law. However, I also think that this would be a very small occurence. I would reserve judgement on this happening with any great regularity. I know it has happened to some Canadiens before though. Yes, that does not sit well with me at all.

I would like to see the numbers though.

I would also suggest that the citizens of AZ are not giving up their liberty at all. I do know that their security is in jeopardy and since the Federal government seems unwilling to secure the border and protect its citizens then they felt this was an appropriate measure. That in of itself is a disturbing spectacle.

Pro Libertate!

Alex| 5.17.10 @ 5:44PM

I am asked for my "papers" every time, I am pulled over: it's called a driver's license. Also, it is the law that any legal alien carry their green card with them at all times. I guess that is the oppression people who come here from other countries must tolerate. Oh yeah, I guess they could go back home...

If I am pulled over for a busted tail light, they CAN arrest me for finding a pound of marijuana in my car in the course of their lawful contact with me. Of course, to be arrested for that crime, I actually have to be committing that crime.

DOUGLASS CAMPBELL| 5.17.10 @ 5:08PM

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?.....mp;h=e8ee2

Tea merchant| 5.18.10 @ 2:05AM

Gee Purpledope you are a moron! Being in the U.S
unlawfully is a crime! That's probable cause to me. But then again Moron you most likley suport breaking laws. Sorry ignorance is no excuse even for dopes like you. I hope you get a great tan on your next vacation (please take a long one) lose your wallet and get escorted to the Socialist, Marxest, Commie nation of your choice.

Purpleguy| 5.18.10 @ 8:25AM

That's idiotic ... probable cause is suspecting a crime has been committed because there is evidence that points to it. What evidence would you have of someone being illegal, unless you check their papers first? I'll tell you - by the color of their skin - and that is what the controversy is all about.

Patrol the damn border, keep illegals out, but get off the police state tactics ... they don't work for the real criminals anyway - the war on drugs should have taught as that, don't you think?

bahmi| 5.19.10 @ 2:04PM

IF the AZ law was truly illegal, rest assured mild man and attorney general Holder would be down there with blazing six guns! Mexico has far more stringent immigration laws than we do. Obama sucked up to Calderon today in typical Obama fashion. Michelle generally wears a sour, anti-American look on her face most of the time. What an ingrate, ironic for an affirmative action dame. Barry is the Chosen One, bought and paid for and under the tutelage of Soros types. Lovely people all.

Arizona Mildman| 7.30.10 @ 3:37PM

I live in Arizona. The police here have been illegally making random (they call it routine) traffic stops since they came out with any laws that demand you have to have proof of Mandatory Insurance, which is , as the law describes, illegal. You don't pull people over without probable cause and if you do they should be let go as soon as the shift commander or watch captain hears about it. Instead it is awarded as good police work. People aren't aware of the constitution here. Illegals are especially unaware of what they are getting into coming here. The thing that surprises me is that ANY of them want to live here. Jobs are scarce and California's governor welcomes them. and to Purpleguy, you need to come live here in a neighborhood full of illegal squatters and trespassers. That is right, trespassers. They are NOT IMMIGRANTS, we have a good system for that. Also, when you talk about OUR laws , why don't you try driving past the border towns into Mexico without a legal visa? The Federales will SHOOT YOU DEAD if you try to do what they do here. If you don't die by some miracle, you will be thrown in a Mexican Jail and ONLY if you are lucky enough to have rich relatives here who will pay for your release, will you ever see your home again. That is what THEY DO to people who try to do what THEY DO to us.
The amount of street drugs that comes in through that border is phenomenal. Those tunnels you hear about were originally made by those people, the smugglers who bring a couple thousand pounds of Methedrine, Heroin, and opiates of various kinds that they mass produce down there. To say that it is actually illegal, so is growing an manufacturing Opium, Heroin, etc. and MOST illegal things imported to the United States come from the South, including Chinese Heroin.
They broke the law to come here and do you really think that people from a country where the law is bribable and corrupt is going to obey the law in the United States? They grew up believing anything they do is OK and if you get arrested, well then, you just pay the police.
The illegals have been shooting policemen here and we have had a rash of driving while intoxicated accidents that they create the majority of, while not bothering to even buy liability insurance. They work "under the table" without taxes being taken out (income tax evasion) to rationalize working for the low wages you hear about. Most of them drink like fish and if you are a boss, you have to get used to Juan showing up to work for Jesus because Jesus drank too much last night. If you are crazy enough to rent one of them an apartment, by nightfall, at least 14 of them are sleeping on the floor without paying rent (defrauding an innkeeper) and then they start thinking they have "rights" so they will skip paying the rent for a month to afford having a party while the neighbors have to listen to Mariachi Music for 72 Hours Straight. Come live here in this wonderland of illegals, right next door to them and see what you think. http://kylehuwer.wordpress.com.....n-arizona/

Bydand76| 5.17.10 @ 12:36PM

Here is the 4th Amendment, Purple.

This pertains to lawful search and seizure.
The SCOTUS has dealt definitive rulings on this over the years. Your argument that the AZ law violates this ammendment is somewhat convoluted. Although, I would suggest that law enforcment DOES in fact overstep its boundries but that would be on a limited case by case basis.

However, with that being said, the basic point I am trying to point out here is that law enforcment can pull you over for ANYTHING that the responding officer finds suspicious OR if he/she has probable cause. No more, no less.

Again the AZ does not violate this at it stands in concurrence with standing operating procedures within law enforcment agencies nationwide.

I would suggest to you to do some homework before you start quoting Rachel Maddow in the future.

The AZ simply re-inforces current Federal law.
There in nothing un-constitutional about it at all!

Perhaps if you and Kylie weren't so blinded by your opposition to anything conservative you might actually learn something.

Pro Libertate!

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 1:07PM

Republican talking points, that's all you got.

I have no idea what Rachel Maddow says, but I can read the bill and the Constitution myself.

And, yes, anyone can pulled over for possibly breaking the law, but who are they going to be suspicious of being "illegal" ... Mr. Whitey? Mrs. Whitey? Surely, you're not this dumb.

I don't envy the police in doing this job, because the AZ bill also authorizes anyone in AZ to bring suit against law enforcement for NOT enforcing this SB1070. Just to make sure the AZ Government gets it's way. Talk about Goverment Overreach. Now, isn't that an interesting little sugar plum. The population ratting out the police for not being strong enough? And, you think that's a good thing too, dontcha?

Conservative is okay, but greed, ambition, power-grabbing, overthrowing the government, torture, unequal treatment under law - no that is not okay.

Stephie| 5.17.10 @ 3:27PM

Since when do you progressives give a rat's bum what the constitutions says?

Purpleguy| 5.18.10 @ 1:00AM

Liberals always have respected the Constitution - they disagree with the conservative interpretation of the Constitution, and they just don't go around hitting everyone in the head with it, like the right-wing does... y'all cherry pick from the Constitution just like you do with the Bible, to make your point.

Remember the Founders were men of the Enlightenment, with the French Revolution in 1790 following on the heels of the American Revolution in 1776. They were Progressive in thought and deed, not conservative, who were the Tories or loyalists, loyal to the King. Revolting against the King was a radical, progressive act, NOT a conservative act. And, these were the men that wrote the Constitution, embued with Progressive and Liberal ideas throughout.

Stop the conservative revision of history to say that the Founders are YOUR people - they weren't . You just want to claim them as if they would even sanction many of your conservative principles today... they would not.

danfromatlanta| 5.18.10 @ 5:34PM

You are an idiot! Conservatives actually defer to the writings of the Founders, including the Constitution. We do not "interpret" their words to make them mean what we wish the way liberals do. Liberals are all about statism, and growing government to solve all our problems with an all powerful federal government. We conservatives disagree, following the principle of "that government which governs least, governs best". Such a concept is foreign to liberals that want to be taken care of from womb to tomb. Grow up, and quit fantasizing that the obamanation cares about you. They want to enslave you!

Nick| 5.19.10 @ 12:09AM

PurpleJackass,

"Liberals always have respected the Constitution [...]."

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

How? By defecating on it?

Libertyman13| 5.19.10 @ 2:50PM

No, by supporting it, by using it to defeat conservative attempts to limit individual liberty through big moral government and unrestrained police action, to desegregate schools against conservative wishes, etc. etc. etc.

The only thing I've ever heard a conservative say was unconstitutional was a measure that tried to help someone. According to conservatives, the government can do anything else it wants to you.

duck| 5.20.10 @ 11:05AM

Purpleguy....

On one hand you say that liberals support the Constitution but then the liberals call the Constitution a "Living, Breathing Document" which means the liberals treat the Constitution more like a rubber check , making it easy to write any value in that is convenient.

Also, if you look up ACLU's history, you will find that the organization was formed by socialists and communists for the expressed purpose to bring the United States down by using America's laws against itself. You fit the pattern like a glove....

Arizona Mildman| 7.30.10 @ 4:10PM

Actually NO, Purpleguy, you are the one trying to CherryPick from the constitution. You want us to avoid the law. The sweatshops the Chinese illegals were brought to isn't the only travesty in our society. The illegals are brought here with promises of money, a life in the land of opportunity and then are told they owe the coyotes who drove them here 5oo dollars plus, then everything they buy will be from the "company store" in some places. They get more latitude in places where they run away from the coyotes, under threat of death, but some of them do, so many in fact that they fill safe houses with them. On the way they trash the Sonoran desert and the Native Americans on the reservations have to clean up the mess. They don't pay any income taxes but want all the federal and state assistance they can get and some people actually are stupid enough to want to see them get a driver's license when they make up the majority, no exaggeration, of the traffic accidents and DWI's here.
You need to read the book, and I am not just talking about the Mexicans, of what happens to illegals once they are here, entitled "Nobodies", by a person who was more liberal than you and set out to prove that illegals were better off left alone here. http://www.amazon.com/Nobodies.....1400062098

Libertyman13| 5.19.10 @ 2:36PM

HAHAHAHA that's choice coming from a conservative. This whole article was about how conservatives must oppose Kagan because she'll limit the ability of the government to exert coercive force upon individuals. If conservatives actually cared about small government (which of course they generally do not, some exceptions being the Barry Goldwater types) they would be out in DROVES to support the ACLU and all those who support their cause. But, as usual, there is very little actual fact behind small government. What conservatives support is small government services.

rocketboy592| 5.17.10 @ 7:28PM

Yes, i would expect an officer of the law, someone sworn to uphold peace, to vehemently question and detain someone who is pulled over without proper documentation (State Issued ID, LEGAL Green Card, Federal Government ID, etc.).
If and when you get pulled over for speeding, broken tail light, busted headlight, etc. what do you expect the officer to do when you say "sorry sir or ma'am, i left my ID at home today" after they ask for the aforementioned ID? Do you expect them to ignore the fact that you are driving without your "Nazi papers" (the papers that all LEGAL citizens carry)? Or do you expect them to take you in for questioning, inquire as to your earlier whereabouts, employer and residence?

Sure, it may seem like the "overextended long arm of the law" but in reality this is intended to have our country reach stabilized ground. Millions of illegal immigrants, soaking up funds from healthcare, without paying a dime in taxes. oh yeah, absolutely no problem there.

Libertyman13| 5.19.10 @ 2:39PM

I don't think many people have a problem with the situation where someone WHO HAS ALREADY COMMITTED A VIOLATION is questioned, though obviously there are dangers there with arbitrary enforcement (whites go free, Hispanics get detained until they produce their papers).

The issue is that officers, in the course of "legal contact" with somebody (which includes walking up to them, or driving slowly by them, or staring at them) and their use of racial criteria in conjunction with some other factor (such as nervousness or other furtive behavior). Suddenly, all you need to be is Hispanic-looking or speaking + nervous around police, and reasonable suspicion manufactures itself.

GavInTucson| 5.17.10 @ 10:46PM

Purpleguy, did you know that the Arizona law is worded exactly the same way as California's immigration law? Makes me wonder why all the focus is on Arizona, when California's been doing it for years (not to mention the federal government).

Convet| 5.19.10 @ 6:54PM

What! No turkey?

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 5.17.10 @ 10:21AM

The only evidence of purposely being dumb I have found on this thread are one posted at 6:29 AM and another posted at 9:34 AM. Exactly how many Poles and Russians are slipping across the southern border into Mexico? Compare that number to the number of Mexican drug runners terrorizing U.S. Citizens in Arizona. By your logic, no law means what it says. This logic is clearly inspired by the current attorney general, who recently admitted that he had not read the very Arizona bill he had just condemned. This is the same legal beagle who dropped the charges against obummerites who had already been convicted for that forgiven crime. But can we any longer say that anyone in party obummer reads or has any knowledge of that which they disapprove. Bill Clinton, the convicted liar, does not know the meaning of ‘is’. Apparently, obumarrhoids do not know the meaning of “illegal”, and it’s not “sick bird”. And the guvanator is more afraid that golden staters will quickly abandon his desperately needed tax base in favor of a state actually attempting to enforce federal law than he is of actually fixing all the problems of his state as he promised when running for election.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Go Galt!
Only 979 days to go.

Dixie Pixie| 5.17.10 @ 1:12PM

Greetings Gill

The writer was obvious to the irony of the Arizona Law being applied equally not only to Polish and Russian nationals but also to Dalaks, Groaci, Wookies, Vogons and the Borg.

Always remember, in Arizona even Darth Vaydor gets carded.

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 1:48PM

I'd love to see that - Dick Cheney being asked "papers please"... hahahahaha.

Dixie Pixie| 5.17.10 @ 5:48PM

Personally I would like to be a fly on the wall at ICE HQ when the call comes in that a TIE Fighter has been pulled over for speeding by the Arizona State police.

bahmim| 5.19.10 @ 2:10PM

And I thought Purpleguy had no sense of humor!! Dadgum, boy, you sharp.

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 1:52PM

And you have the Star of David proudly displayed, and you say this? Shame on you... YOU should no better.

I on the other hand have a .pdf file of SB1070, and have read all 17 pages.

Your opinions are yours, rambling as they are, but the facts are not.

When you want to discuss facts, not your opinion, come back - otherwise be gone!

Nick| 5.17.10 @ 2:08PM

PurpleJackass,

You don't even know the difference between "precedents" and "precedence", moron.

And, you think John Marshall was the first chief justice of the Supreme Court!

How many times can you stand to be embarrassed like this?
How stupid are you?
How can you keep coming back here, just to be repeatedly exposed as an ignorant nimrod?

I feel like George Kennedy, in "Cool Hand Luke", telling Paul Newman to "stay down!"

The AntiPurple Guy| 5.17.10 @ 5:01PM

You actually read the bill? In what, Bizarro Land? If you'd actually read the bill, you'd find it's not a fascist bill, it's not Berlin circa 1939 all over again, and most of all, you'd find that the immigration bill is a mirror of current federal immigration laws, the only two differences being that this makes it a state misdemeanor to be an illegal immigration, and unlike the federal government, ARIZONA ACTUALLY ENFORCES THEIR LAW.

Stephie| 5.17.10 @ 10:18PM

You're one to talk about opinions Purp.
That's what you espouse! the liberal talking points opinion. Please go away.

loulou| 5.17.10 @ 10:43AM

Moron, do you think we should have affirmative action quotas for illegal aliens?

95% of illegal aliens are from Mexico and Central America and you want us to bean count? Moron.

Chalkdust| 5.17.10 @ 3:24PM

Mr./Ms =Purplerain:
Unlike your musing about Melvin, your brain power is not in question. For your editification, which I doubt your brain can encompass, the AZ law requires an observed/dispatched volation of the extant AZ and/or local laws before enquiring about the resident status of a suspect.

The Anti-PurpleGuy| 5.17.10 @ 4:59PM

Wow, are your purple or are you retarded?

"But which one of you thinks that the law was meant to stop Polish illegals or Russian illegals from living in the US?"

Uhm…how many Polish or Russian illegals have you seen crossing the Mexican border?

Call a spade a spade. By far and large, Latinos are the majority of illegal immigrants (with a few Asians here and there). I actually live in Arizona, and I've dealt with illegals, and lemme tell you, I haven't seen any illegal Polish or Russkies coming through here.

I'm willing to bet money you don't live in Arizona, so point blank, you need to shut the fuck up.

sk| 5.17.10 @ 5:25PM

the Jewish people that lived in 1930's Germany were Actually CITIZENS of that Country!!! If you are pulled over because your Hispanic of course that is wrong, but if your break the law and your Hispanic I say show your papers....I don't want to pay for illegals to live here, work, here, go to school here and have free medicaid and food-stamps here...you want to live here DO IT THE RIGHT WAY!!!!!!!!!!!

HmongSoldier| 5.17.10 @ 6:53PM

"If someone is detained"
"suspicion of law breaking"
"Police asking for identification"

Isn't that the normal procedure for police?

More than half of AZ population agreed to this new law. The only ones crying are the illegals and the left.

Instead of causing riots in CA, AZ like the senseless mob the left is. Boycott if you are soooo against it. Keep reverting to violence and it will more tainted water gets added into your cup.

Hmm you can't build a wall like China.
Can't/Will not tax businesses that hire illegals.
Won't issue more work visas
Can't raise taxes...

What do you propose should happen? Amnesty?

I don't think so. If I came into this country the legal way they should be doing the same too!!!

sp1ke0kill3r| 5.18.10 @ 3:12PM

Purpleguy:
I wasn't aware that Arizona's law was designed to prevent Mexicans from living in the US. For that matter, I wasn't aware that these groups are heavily involved in the Mexican drug cartel's running drugs across Arizona's border. Now while say 95% of Hispanics in AZ have nothing to do with the cartel's,
It's also likely that a large percentage of people crossing the border on behalf of the cartels (not to mention coyotes, etc) are Mexican as opposed to Polish, Canadian or Russian.
Further since an officer can ask for my ID- Licence
and registration, I'm not sure what the problem is with asking for an additional piece of paper.
Not having proper ID can lead to my arrest. Further since employers already insist I supply proof of citizenship (though illegals continue to get hired)
why is it wrong to ask for it in a place where "the preponderance of the illegals" by your own admission
are "primarily Mexican".
Further, your own description of the law observes "if someone is detained for any reason on suspicion of law breaking"
In sum we have a person detained on suspicion of lawbreaking can be asked for their citizenship papers.
The question here is "Are you purposely being dumb?" Can you show a law from 1930's Germany
with the same criteria?

Libertyman13| 5.19.10 @ 2:42PM

An officer absolutely CANNOT demand your identification without some sort of reasonable suspicion or probably cause. And that's how it should be, and that's how all you supposedly small-government types should want it too.

The problem with this law is how easily normally innocent conduct becomes reasonable suspicion.

C Beal| 5.18.10 @ 3:39PM

Anyone, no matter race, creed, or color is required to show identification - I don't care what state, city, providence, country, etc etc etc, they are from. When I went to Europe and Asia, I was required to have my passport with me at ALL times. Arizonans embrace people of all races, creeds, or colors, no matter WHERE they are from - as long as they come here LEGALLY! To compare SB 107o with Nazi "Germany" simply shows how ignorant you are, and that goes for Arny! Do your homework "purpleguy"!!!!

Olddog1| 5.18.10 @ 6:41PM

If you were to get detained by the police, I expect they would ask for "your papers" -- most likely a driver's license or some other photo ID issued by a government organization. Not, as you say, "citizenship papers." I don't ever recall a cop asking me for my social security card. If the ID looks to be suspicious (e.g. forged or stolen) the police are obliged to ask more questions -- regardless of what color your skin may be. Questions like, "did you know you were speeding?" Or "where are you going." Oh, and in the Northwest, they do have problems with Russian illegals. So if Oregon or Washington had a law like Arizona's, caucasians might be asked about their citizenship.

dawsonkid| 5.19.10 @ 1:47PM

OldDog. Not only do the police ask for your license and your vehicle registration, they get on their dash-mounted computer, or radios, and check out who you are. It is silly to argue that AZ cannot require the same thing in a lawful stop. The laws of most states prohibit random stops to check for drunk drivers, but they can stop every driver at times when drunk drivers would likely be out in force. The AZ argument is a smokscreen to avoid attention of the absolute failure of the federal government to do its job, a failure of every administration in the foreseeable past.

JoeFish| 5.19.10 @ 3:32PM

What I don't understand is why anyone finds it so
intolerable for AZ to want to protect it's borders in the first place! If your'e not here illegally, what's the big deal in providing some form of proof? Are you so ignorant to to the fact many illegals are here without permission you feel you might erroneously be stopped and detained because of it? Oh!poor baby.. Really get a life! If you have nothing to hide you don't have any reason to object to the law either!

bruce| 5.19.10 @ 4:30PM

i think you should stay out of america and go to mexico where you will fit right in with that cesspool of a country.

Convet| 5.19.10 @ 6:52PM

Stupid is as stupid does. Don't feed the fister troll.

Nobammy Bin Lyin| 5.21.10 @ 1:19AM

Well duh Purpleknob, what did you expect the law to look for ? Little old white grannies like they do when "looking" for young male middle eastern men who try to blow up planes? You don't need to be purposely dumb because you're obviously quite naturally dumb. We don't call you kool-aid sippers DUMocrats for nothing. I am an AMERICAN of Mexican decsend and I've never been bothered by the law regarding my status nor has my mother who is a proud naturalized citizen and frequently crosses back and forth between Mexico and the US. You act like you're doing us some kind of favor by acting like a fool in our 'defense'. Don't you realize that most hispanics support this new law? Are you capable of even understanding why we would? I would welcome the police respectfully asking me about my status because then I would at least know they are doing their job trying to keep us safe. Maybe you should do yourself a favor and actually read the law before you jump off half cocked and end up looking like a fool. We don't need your help to be Latino living in the US, we do just fine on our own. Most of us were born and raised here just like you were (presumably) so why wouldn't we want to protect our country? We love our country unlike your crybaby pansy liberal whiney ass. You should worry about yourself seeing how we as a country are shifting back to the right finally. The day will soon come when your crap won't be tolerated anymore so mind your own business. Maybe I'll have a chance to whine for you! Not. If you hate your own country so much, why don't you move to Mexico? Beautiful place and sparsly populated. Lots of elbow room! And please take Hollywood with you. They can entertain you.

cary| 5.17.10 @ 5:16PM

FINALLY, someone who actually challenges someone to read the AZ law---even our President hasn't read it.

Carol| 5.17.10 @ 8:01PM

You need to read the law. It does not say that. Read it before you make a comment on something you know nothing about.

Tom| 5.17.10 @ 7:47AM

We now have elected Republican leaders who believe it is "right and just" to stop innocent people on the street who "look hispanic".

Name 1.

Matt| 5.17.10 @ 12:27PM

Tom-you are completely stupid. asking for ID and being given a Mexican drivers license might create the 'sneaking suspicion' that this suspect is...not from AZ. I don't show my US drivers license when I'm in Europe, I show my passport. Follow on questions to determine facts.

Tom| 5.17.10 @ 12:32PM

Matt,
You are dull, ignorant, or overly inbred. Kylie said "We now have elected Republican leaders who believe it is "right and just" to stop innocent people on the street who "look hispanic"."
I asked her to name 1. Not a difficult thing. Now I know because of your severe congenital birth defects you have a hard time following a thread, perhaps you should try keep notes next time.
Have a pleasant day,
Tom

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 1:46PM

Don't be stupid... didn't we go through all this with African-Americans being pulled over in a "white" neighborhood for just being there - suspicious huh? The police will "say" they pulled someone over for suspicion of doing something illegal, and then ask for papers from someone they "think" are illegal immigrants. You don't seriously think they will "say", I pulled him over 'cause he looks illegal to me, I mean look at him! It's an insidious way to racial profiling. Protect the border, fine, but this law is racist, Gestapo tactics in sheep's clothing.

Let's try the Governor, Jan Brewer, of Arizona for one. She signed the law, Not that she would know who would look illegal, she admitted as such. So, if the Governor herself can't tell us how she would enforce the law, how does she expect anyone else to?

And, I don't hear any Arizona Republicans denouncing the law, have you?

Tom| 5.17.10 @ 3:51PM

Purple,
I asked a simple question. She put the words in quotes which implies she is quoting someone. Asking for an example is far from stupid.

If she wants to claim this is what supporters of the law really believe she is free to state that as opinion. But don't allude to quotes that we all know do not exist.

danfromatlanta| 5.18.10 @ 5:22PM

What an idiot! You think cops will pull Mexicans over because they look like Mexicans? Do you think all the cops are white racists? Do you think they have nothing better to do than intimidate poor "undocumented" aliens? Please! Stop insulting our law enforcement community. You know nothing about this law that you haven't heard the obamanation say, so why not educate yourself, and find out about it on your own with an open mind. Assuming you can approach anything in that manner, think for yourself!

dawsonkid| 5.19.10 @ 1:56PM

What is the Spanish population of AZ? How many cops belong to that ethnic group? What ethnic group is going to do all the gestapo wrongdoing? How do the legal Mexicans in AZ feel about the illegals? I'll wager that the legal Mexicans in AZ are not worried about racial profiling. How did "race" get into this anyway? This possibly could be discriminatory, but it is not "racial."

Convet| 5.19.10 @ 6:56PM

Hey purple SEIU guy! Don't have no stroke?

C| 5.18.10 @ 3:42PM

Before you comment on something you obviously haven't read, I encourage you to google SB 1070 and read it! Not doing so only shows your ignorance!

bull-gator| 5.17.10 @ 8:13AM

Kylie you are dreadfully uninformed and your comments sound as if they were taken verbatim from a progressive handbook on how to demonize conservative values. I wish there was hope for people of your ilk, but sadly, I it sounds as if you are beyond redeeming.

KyLIE More Like it| 5.17.10 @ 9:13AM

Kylie, rather than regurgitate liberal talking points, why not go read the bill for yourself? If you did (which you most certainly have not), you'd see that police are not given the authority to "stop innocent people on the street"--of any race. They are merely charged with verifying the legal status of people they've already stopped or arrested, i.e. those who've already committed a traffic violation or crime. It merely codifies US law into Arizona law. And guess what: an overwhelming majority of Americans support that. Facts are stubborn things, especially for liberals.

Stephie| 5.17.10 @ 9:24AM

"stop innocent people on the street"
With their kids on the way to the icecream parlor"

Darragh| 5.17.10 @ 9:47AM

Do you actually know any of the tea baggers that your're demonizing? How easy for you, then.

The ACLU is a politically driven organization that stands for the rights of a selected few. I didn't see them standing up here in Maine, when people protesting the gay marriage vote picketed churches and made death threats against leading Catholics. Give me a break.

WoodzieMainer| 5.17.10 @ 6:03PM

I think the pro gay protests were by those undocumented and illegal Canadian woodsmen that we have and are the reason that we need to get a law like Arizona's here. It is Open Season on the ACLU here in the northern forest btw...

Alan Brooks| 5.17.10 @ 10:05AM

Well, then, why call the military the 'military'?
Why not call it 'Defense'?

Does 'Campus Defense Recruitment' sound too... defensive?

dasboot| 5.17.10 @ 10:36AM

Teabaggers is a derogatory term to gay men who practice this. You sir, are homophobic.

Chris Hermann| 5.17.10 @ 11:11AM

You, like Eric(Duh) Holder, must not have read the Arizona bill, and would please put here in writing where it says to target anyone. By the way, the ACLU used to be a fine organization interested in advancing the human condition until Progressives got hold of it. It is now an embarrassment to mainstream people, mostly those you would classify as needing help just want left alone w/their dignity. You will also have to dance to the tune prescribed by the Judiciary, and you may not be so inclined once progressives toss you libs under the bus. Good Luck With That Ewe

duck| 5.21.10 @ 12:30PM

Look up ACLU's history, you will find that the organization was formed by socialists and communists for the expressed purpose to bring the United States down by using America's laws against itself.

Ted| 5.17.10 @ 11:17AM

Yes, many people do share Dean Kagan's views; and many more people in America do not share her views.

Your comments about Arizona indicate you have not read the Arizona law in question. It specifically prohibits racial profiling. If you wish to make a germane comment or join the discussion, please do so.

However, if you do so without any knowledge of the facts and using slurs (see Teabagger above), you make yourself look foolish, uneducated, and unwise.

Vince| 5.17.10 @ 2:37PM

Kylie is it better to be a Tea Bagger or to be Tea Bagged?

Bob| 5.17.10 @ 5:13PM

Another blast from the ignorant left. Read the bill and then quote the "facts" instead of making them up. I can't beleive the rampant stupidity and the resultant ignorant statements being foisted re this bill. If you are breaking the law you need to be arrested and dealt with.

Alex| 5.17.10 @ 5:29PM

Many of us who are "Tea Baggers" also believe in civil liberties, for example, disposing of the unconstitutional Patriot Act, Obama's policy regarding "hate speech," the government's involvement in marriage, and religious liberties. But to misconstrue immigration enforcement laws involving a lawful contact demonstrates your ignorance of the law and personal bias.

Stephie| 5.17.10 @ 10:24PM

Well said Alex!!!! And how right your are!

danfromatlanta| 5.18.10 @ 5:12PM

Yes, many people do share her views, but they are outnumbered 2 to 1 by those disagreeing with her views. You also display your ignorance about the Arizona law by classifying it as racial profiling. The law perfectly mirrors the federal law that the obamanation administration swore to uphold but refuses to enforce. We Tea Party folk are not inspired bty hatred of anything other than the duplicitous and socialist nature of liberals such as you, and the steady errosion of our freedoms by the obamanation. If you want a socialist workers paradise where American exceptionalism and freedom are hated, please emmigrate to the socialist dictatorship of your choice, and get out of our way!

Convet| 5.19.10 @ 6:50PM

Smoked any good books lately?

Bob Bartlow| 5.20.10 @ 10:51AM

To Kylie Estwick
Ignorance, no matter how eloquently stated, is just more uninformed liberal rhetoric. Obviously, you have not read the Arizona law that you are so against.
It clearly states that the intent is that the federal immigration laws will be enforced. Any peace officer that detains anybody for a civil or criminal offense is required to determine if the person is a citizen. If they are not citizens, they are required to take them to the nearest federal facility for processing.

They are also preventing people from impeding traffic to stop on a road and pick up "day labor".

Any employer found to employ illegal aliens will be required to terminate all illegals and be warned. Second offense and they would strip any license or permit to do business.

Racial profiling in any way will not be tolerated. Frankly, I like the law.

stureed| 5.17.10 @ 6:47AM

dearest brain dead kylie,
Is you ignorance a natural occurrence of have you had to work for years to achieve this level?

k962| 5.17.10 @ 6:52AM

Thte mantra of the left is we need diversity. But I guess diversity means we need aanother leftist from New York City on the bench. Ginsberg, Soto Maor and now Kagan all left of center from NYC.
NYC is America? Puleeze! Maybe thye could squeeze in somebody from say Nebraska one time.

daddio| 5.17.10 @ 10:15AM

Hell no-someone from Nebraska might actually think for themselves!!!!

brutus6| 5.17.10 @ 12:57PM

Unless, of course, it's Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson..

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 1:36PM

Really? You have something against NYC Justices on the Supreme Court?

Then you must dislike Antonin Scalia too ...

"Scalia, who joined the court in 1986, was born in New Jersey but grew up in working-class Queens in the '40s and '50s, a time when the neighborhood was both diverse in its makeup and conservative in its views, and the pugnacious New York attitude was alive and well."

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/.....s/19471901

jack| 5.17.10 @ 7:39AM

Hard to get much further from the norm than this lunatic. Where do they find people like this? How can people like this have any involvement in the education of our children? We are in big trouble. If she had anything to do with the education of Obama she should face automatic rejection.

davelnaf| 5.17.10 @ 7:57AM

People brought up in liberal households or ‘born’ liberal often tend to shed this ideology once they survive the influences of the university and are introduced to the real world. Such a survivor might find the real world quite different from what his or her esteemed professors and TAs ranted on and on about. From what we already know about her Kagan is not one of the survivors.

martine22| 5.17.10 @ 7:58AM

where do they find them? why in the rareified environs of harvard, princeton, yale etc. yet another out of touch east coast ivy leaguer. didn't learn to drive until her late 20s, has no children and has spent all her energy propelling herself into the upper echelons of the democratic party.

the type who knows what's best for us...NOT

martin j smith| 5.17.10 @ 8:20AM

Kylie baby you are a waiste of gime in general but, I will say this: The Eric Holder and BHO say stupid things I hope they contiue to do and say stupid things because that is how more people will see the light. You Kylie-are a paid political hack ( real or imaginary money ) and if you think readers do not see that then you are really stupid.
So if you like talking your hot air go ahead but we have you covered.

march2,2011| 5.17.10 @ 8:20AM

Mr. Estwick
Obviously you, as well as all your liberal friends(both elected and unelected)have NOT read the law. It is only 10 pages (as opposed to the Health Care Bill 2000 pages). Read it, you will find that your comments are not only in error they are plainly stupid.

Purpleguy| 5.17.10 @ 5:22PM

I have read the bill, SB1070, and it is 17 pages long.

The bill is not the innocuous little re-iteration of federal law you all submit. If you HAD read the bill YOU would know that.

One little sugar plum in this bill is the requirement that the police enforce the law (ok, no big deal here), but then to allow anyone to bring suit against the police if they fail to enforce the law. Now isn't that interesting little twist ... no Government intervention there.

Remember, you are either against Big Brother entirely, or you are not. You protect Free Speech or you don't. You protect the right to equal justice under the law or you don't.

Any allowance for Big Brother to overreach, means the Big Brother you like of today may very well be the Brother you don't like tomorrow.

Nick| 5.17.10 @ 7:05PM

I thought you stinking libs were relativists and rationalists, PurpleJackass?

I thought that the world was not "black and white", but shades of grey?

Now, you are claiming to be a moral absolutist?
What a joke.

GW| 5.17.10 @ 7:45PM

Libs like Purple guy think its okay for the government to take your land and sell it to wealthier private entities for profit, they think we should all be forced to buy a private commodity (health insurance), they think we should have 50% or more of our wages taxed, they think "global warming" is the biggest danger to civilization and thus the gov't can take away any of our liberties to stop it, BUT worry when a state passes a benign law that mirrors a Federal law in existance already. No, this is the most dangerous overreach in American government today. A state trying to protect it's citizens. No, we must cowtow to the illegal Mexicans who feel their rights "violated." The illegal Mexicans who don't respect this country, won't learn the language, and drain our social resources and raise medical care prices for everyone. No,no,no, we should be more concerned about Jose from Tijuana than Jim from Tucson. We should listen to the opinions of those not here legally before 70% of those in the state of Arizona. What f'n country does Purplegay want to live in? Move to Mexico if he thinks Mexicans deserve better rights than everyone else.

Purpleguy| 5.18.10 @ 12:44AM

You're completely wrong in all your Republican talking points spectacle.

"think its okay for the government to take your land and sell it to wealthier private entities for profit, they think we should all be forced to buy a private commodity (health insurance), they think we should have 50% or more of our wages taxed, they think "global warming" is the biggest danger to civilization and thus the gov't can take away any of our liberties to stop it" - don't project all your Republican fears and prejudices on me, dude.

I am sure you don't pay 50% of your income to taxes, that's a complete and bald faced lie, nor is any one advocating that. Taking land is a bullshit thing I don't agree with either. Global warming is a threat to life on the planet, not just our civilization... It isn't the first time in earth's history that warming caused dieoff and extinction of species. Just this time around it may well include us. It is a clear and present danger, obfuscated by those corporate assholes that pay for competing "studies" to muddy the truth. And, as for healthcare, I don't believe any company should make any money from the tragic health issues that can befall anyone's life. Healthcare should be non-profit, which Obamacare is not.

Nick| 5.18.10 @ 12:52AM

I hope global warming causes an extinction of liberals!

Convet| 5.19.10 @ 6:59PM

Bad boy purple! You needs mouthwash with conservative soap, DOPER!

Chalkdust| 5.17.10 @ 8:51AM

Ms. Estwick:
Please post again soon. Most of America is not conversate in eastern liberal think speech just as I am sure you are not conversate in American "between the coast" speak. It was a learning moment for us all. Mummie, Daddy, pukie and the dog Mr. snuffles would be soooo proud of you this day.

RacerJim| 5.17.10 @ 8:51AM

Dear Kylie Estwick:
You Lie!

Neo-libertarian| 5.17.10 @ 8:55AM

To all of you who wish to inadvertantly empower lunitics such as Estwick, a few words:

“Do we really want Another ACLU type on the SC?” Kind of late for rhetorical pondering, don’t you think? Elections have results; sadly in this case we are dealing with the adage, “Want in one hand and defecate in the other, see which fills up first.” So, in order to prevent any further debacles on upcoming Supreme Court Appointees and other minor issues like redistricting I will humbly suggest that all the SocCon’s now to turn to their copy of the “Contract From America” and to simply remain silent until you find in the text the catchwords “abortion” and “gay marriage.” This “mandate of mum” will be lifted the second Wednesday in November. Furthermore, should you dispute my interpretation as to the reality of the terms “mainstream” and “consensus” I have two words for you, “Laura Bush.”

GW| 5.17.10 @ 7:47PM

What?

Stephie| 5.17.10 @ 9:01AM

Hey Kylie, did you know that the ACLU defended the members and idiology of NAMBLA and their
"rights" to molest young boys?
Another hater of America.

Anthony| 5.17.10 @ 9:07AM

So where are the reprehensible Chuck Schumer and Patrick Lehey now, to tell the president that he needs to appoint a centrist nominee, you know, like what real Americans are?
Gee, it was so enlightening watchings these leftist whores parade to the TV cameras to lecture Bush on moderation.
I guess coming from the Upper West Side and an Ivy League education is the epitome of moderation. Kagan was probably as dumbfounded as the former New Yorker movie critic, Pauline Kael, who, didn't know a single person who voted for Nixon over McGovern. Forty Nine states, yet the denizens of the West Side were clueless.
As much as I think the filibuster of judicial nominees is unconstitutional, this is a fight that the Rs need to take to the Ds. This woman is a disaster and at the very least, the filibuster option needs to be destroyed once and for all, and the Ds need to do it with this leftist nominee.
Chances of this happening, ZILCH.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 5.17.10 @ 9:56AM

Someone much smarter than I once said that a tyranny of a majority is still a tyranny. As the recent obummercare farce clearly demonstrated, our gum’mint is presently such a tyranny as it is no longer representing The People but selected sources of revenue. The filibuster is an important weapon for enabling an overwhelmed minority to protect itself and us from such tyranny. Article I, Section 5, of OUR Constitution clearly states, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings ...” This is a Rule of the Senate and is Constitutionally authorized. If the sin-8 is so motivated, it can repeal this rule if and when it so wishes. While I am displeased when those with whom I disagree use the filibuster to block legislation I favor, I’m not willing to surrender any weapon I might need someday. If filibuster is the only way to stop the enthronement of kommie loon kagan, then use it. Hopefully, there will be a sufficient number of OUR elected representatives who love OUR Country more than their political careers. We must all resolve to not support in any manner whatsoever any sin-eater who votes for this obummernation.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
Go Galt!
Only 979 days to go.

FakeEagle| 5.17.10 @ 9:09AM

The sad truth is that Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court is probably a done deal. The opposition put up by the Republicans, if any, will amount to nothing more than public grandstanding for the sake of those voters who still claim to believe in conservative principles: principles that fewer and fewer Republicans truly hold dear. Sadly, the only party in recent history that has exhibited a spine where judicial nomination proceedings are concerned is the Democrat party. I'd like to think that there is someone guarding the house in Washington, but I've seen no evidence of it yet.

GW| 5.17.10 @ 7:50PM

And does it matter? If she is not confirmed we will have another lib to deal with. We can all be glad the court won't shift politically...Obama's replacing a liberal w/ a liberal.

1FreeMan| 5.17.10 @ 9:59AM

Republican Congressman and Senators, let me warn you:
If you do not oppose this ALCU-shill in her nomination for the Supreme Court you will be labeled as another Obama-loving RINO. You remember what we do to RINO's? We vote them out of office. The American people are fed up with the attacks on our faith, freedom and paychecks.
We WILL REMEMBER in November!!

Dasboot`| 5.17.10 @ 10:40AM

Kagen, like Obama and Holder hates America. It really is that simple. Another self loathing liberal who projects her feelings onto the rest of us.

martin j smith| 5.17.10 @ 10:45AM

Ah,November--first do no harm--that means do not bite off your nose to spite your face. Then--with the luxury of a new day-then go after the RINOS--be very careful what you ask for --the first and only goal should be to get enough Republicans to have the possibility of repealing and etc. the Left agenda or at least blocking further damage. Then, we can fine tune .

Here is the other thing: ,Even if this Kagan person is not acceptable BHO and his gang will find ( and believe me they have plan B just in case ) they have another BHO clone waiting in the wings one who is very sly and phoney just as I expect Kagan to be during the hearings. The important thing in the hearings is to give the nominee enough rope to hang HERSELF such as a failure to verbalize Islamic Radicals as in the case of Eric Holer in recent days.

OldSchool| 5.17.10 @ 10:48AM

NO SURPRISES HERE Kagan's nomination is such a classic exercise in Obama surrounding himself with those who both resemble and worship him: No experience, in fact a long standing effort to cover her tracks (remember BHO's legacy of voting 'present' 130 times as an IL state senator?). Cleverly aggressive abortion stance (just like Sebelius; what drives the Left's baby blood lust?). Disconnect with the real world where people are actually weaned from the academic/public sector teat and earn a living (can't find a single business person in the BHO White House, not one!) yet holding the ACLU is such high regard (check out the roots of the ACLU and Planned Parenthood sometime - holy s#*+!). And all of this airbrushed for delivery by the old media (just shut up and write down my talking points). We can get the healthcare Obamination replaced and turn him (and Reid) out of office soon, but we may be living with this Upper West Side Story for a very long time.

Tim*| 5.17.10 @ 10:56AM

Go Figure !
" The President’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, called Aharon Barak “my judicial hero. He is the judge who has best advanced democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and justice.”

Tim*| 5.17.10 @ 11:29AM

Tea Party Principles :
1. Judges must interpret the Constitution of the United States as written and not attempt to modify it, either by inventing new rights or by ignoring or diluting rights already there. The Constitution already provides an amendment process that gives that power to the people and their elected officials.
2. Judges must not use their positions to replace the text of the law and Constitution of the United States with their own personal feelings or agenda or "life experiences." Nor should they allow empathy, political favor, or political identification to affect their legal decisions. To do so is to engage in judicial activism.
3. Judges must understand that the Federal government has no power if the Constitution does not explicitly provide it. The Founders did this to maximize personal and economic liberty. The Constitution reserves all other rights to the states and to the people.
4. Judges must respect the delicate checks and balances and the separation of powers among the branches of government, refusing to become a tool of either the Legislative or Executive branches, and they must be prepared to invalidate efforts of either branch to overstep its constitutionally delegated powers.
5. The Constitution is an American document, and declares that it shall be "the supreme Law of the Land." Foreign law has no place as precedent or authority in the interpretation of the Constitution.

GW| 5.17.10 @ 7:51PM

So you claim to speak for all Tea Partiers?

Oldefarte| 5.17.10 @ 11:43AM

To answer Ken's question, no [or should I say....HELL, NO?]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dixie Pixie| 5.17.10 @ 12:26PM

Elena Kagan's only contact with the “common people” is with the counter clerk at Starbucks or a waitress at a restaurant.
In short the only “common people” she has known were servants.
So why should Elana Kagan not consider that the natural condition of an American is to be a servant to her and the Elite Class.

Joe| 5.17.10 @ 12:41PM

Block her, filabuster her, in other words stop her at any cost Senators.

JP| 5.17.10 @ 12:49PM

We've got the courts we deserve. Congress - namely the Senate -has jurisdictional rights over the federal courts. But politics trumps even constitutional seperations of powers. As long as the political outcomes are "correct" the liberals do not mind one iota the judicial coup that has taken place. And it isn't just the courts; large federal bureacracies within the executive are now laws unto themselves. And in the case of the EPA, both the courts and the executive have effectively stripped congressional oversight. Reid and Pelosi could give a hoot as long as the political outcomes are agreeable.

Kegan is a judicial lightwight. Intellectually she has little to show for herself, despite her over-credentialed CV. But it isn't her judicial temperment or intellect Obama wants -it is her vote and her alleged ability to coax people to her side (I'm assuming progressive are thinking of Justice Kennedy).

If the GOP ever does make a comeback in the Senate, the Senators must begin flexing thier political and jurisdictional muscle. Our problems with the High Court are not so far gone that judicial impeachment cannot fix. A little taste of the Senate's jurisdictional whip on thier backside might be just the cure. If the High Court justices wish to play at being politicians treat them as such. If the likes of Ginsberg, Breyer, Sottomeyer and Kagan wish to force a constitutional crisis, I say bring it on. The folks at Ft Leavenworth can keep 5 cells reserved for just the occaison.

David| 5.17.10 @ 2:20PM

This liberal moron Kagan, when Dean of Harvard Law School, completely flaunted a law that was passed by both parties in Congress, and was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Don't Ask-Don't Tell was the law of land then, and it still is the law today, but this moron of a woman FELT/BELIEVED that she could exclude military recruiters from the campus simply because SHE didn't like the law.

If, as a simple dean of a law school, she was confident enough to ignore the simply written and understandable law of Don't Ask-Don't Tell, she will be all the more brazen if she ever gets on the Supreme Court.

This woman is a very dangerous moron. She ranks right up there with retiring Justice Stevens, Sonia ("the wise Latina")Sotomayor, and Ruth ("children ought to be able to consent to sex at age 12") Bader-Ginsberg.

Repubs had better fight her nomination with everything they have. One thing the vast majority of the voters do understand is that unelected judges appointed for life should not be making the laws.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.17.10 @ 3:06PM

A little different take on the Kagan nomination:

Were I a Republican Senator, knowing we can not count on some few Republicans votes in a filibuster effort, I might use this Senate vetting process as a "teaching moment" vis a vi the elections in November.
We here are pretty well versed in her obvious shortcomings, and her clonelike following of Obama. Many Americans may not be as aware.

Bydand76| 5.17.10 @ 4:35PM

Hey Ken (Old Texican)
I agree. I think it might be a good idea to find out if she agrees with Woody Allen and Sean Penn. They think Obama should become the first American dictator.

Scary!

Hows the book doing btw?

Pro Libertate!

jrjr| 5.17.10 @ 5:34PM

Surprise, surprise. It could have been worse. There was a 9th circuit judge available. Wasn't Mayor Daily available.?

Mattmon1| 5.17.10 @ 5:35PM

Yeah, Purple is out of his mind...I actually argued this through with a buddy of mine that recently graduated Law School (with honors) in any case, we had a good discussion about the law but, it was clear that he hadn't read the law at first other than some scraps/bits of the law clipped from a left-wing article and, clearly he read the law at some point and we concluded by saying the law doesn't givve law enforcement any new tools for profiling but, he was simply convinced that Police would abuse the law...aka it matters not what the law says to the left they are more interested in limiting the ability of law enforcement than protecting the rights of the Citizens of Arizona.

Purpleguy| 5.18.10 @ 12:34AM

Not so, I am quite sane ... and I have read the entire bill, at the very least to be armed with facts to refute the echo chamber many on the right live in between Rushbo and Fox News.

What power has the Government ever been given that doesn't get abused? And, you're not worried about it at all?

Nick| 5.18.10 @ 12:51AM

You are armed with your own so-called "facts", PurpleJackass.
Those of us, who live in reality, call them propaganda.

You are so poorly armed, you couldn't shoot your way out of a paper bag.

duck| 5.21.10 @ 12:59PM

Surely you are not saying that when Liberals are in control of the government there are abuses.

I have always been led to believe that Liberals do no wrong.

Nick| 5.17.10 @ 5:48PM

Mattmon1,

This is because one of the tenets of liberalism is:

Pro-criminal/Anti-law enforcement

Nick| 5.17.10 @ 5:51PM

Oops! That should be: Pro-crime/Anti-law enforcement

It's hard to keep the tenets of liberalism striaght.

Paevo| 5.17.10 @ 5:56PM

It's on account of people like Kagan that I left academia in disgust... How does one in all honesty attempt to convince oneself that this is an exceptional human being in any meaningful sense?...

Bill| 5.17.10 @ 6:11PM

Poor illegal aliens... it's not illegal to be here illegally. Whatever will they do? Here's an idea: they could come here within the realms of the law and get whatever privileges they want. This law is not racist - it's biased against lawbreakers - not Hispanics.

SDProg| 5.17.10 @ 7:01PM

So Ken Blackwell doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence? For those accused of being a terrorist it should be a presumption of guilt right? Ken wants us to place our complete trust in the claims of government officials. How unamerican and disgusting. How did he serve on the Human Rights Commission?

Bydand76| 5.17.10 @ 8:46PM

Oh please! You dumb-ass progressive POS!

Take your intellectual smugness and go to hell.
What do you know about Un-American and disgusting eh SD Prog? Chicken Hawk!
This is what I despise about liberals. You look down your noses at everyone who might have a different opinion than what your stupid faux-pandering Socialist leaders who care about EVERYONE want you think say or do.
Yeah,ok. How are things in Venezuela? Hmm?
Detroit? Hmm CALIFORNIA or NEW YORK? Hmmmmm?
At least Arizona is sticking up for their citizens and at least Mr Blackwell calls a duck when he sees one.

But no. SDProg gets offended and climbs right up on his high horse
eewww Conservatives are mmmmeeeeaaannnn.
Conservatives want to torture people and they want to take your money and they dont like minorities cuz their racist and they are all rich and dont like paying taxes and blah blah blah dee blah blah blah.

Piss Off you knee biting git!
You little blanket carrying Linus wannabe MoFo!
Wake up!
That is NOT what Mr Blackwell was saying and you know it.

Try some honesty for some hope and change.

Wait until November in 2010 and 2012. I can hear you little libturds crying about it now!

Douchbags! The lot of ya!

Stinking libs!

MOLON LABE!!! PRO LIBERTATE!!!

SDProg| 5.17.10 @ 10:13PM

Ken Blackwell said, "Do we have any doubt that Kagan shares the view of this administration that captured terrorists deserve a presumption of innocence?"

How am I supposed to interpret this? Everyone is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but Blackwell appears to disagree. He's apparently willing to just accept the claims of government officials. Also, the Obama administration has been practicing indefinite detention and has made extensive use of the state secrets privilege to stonewall the presentation of evidence in some trials for detainees, so I'm puzzled as to what Blackwell is specifically referring to.

JimE| 5.17.10 @ 9:16PM

SDTARD,
You and your liberal friends have no trouble presuming guilt when you believe a "right-winger" committed the crime. Go home and play with your islamic controller's feces.

SDProg| 5.17.10 @ 10:02PM

Funny I seem to have limited my criticism to Ken Blackwell and you go on and paint me and other liberals with a broad brush. Do you have any evidence that I presume guilt when a conservative is accused of a crime or are you just making a baseless assertion?

James S to PurpleGuy| 5.17.10 @ 9:10PM

Purpleguy, if it was your mother who was gunned down in cold blooded murder during a robbery in the beautiful sanctuary city of Albuquerque by one of five illegals, who had each been arrested a minimum of four times each prior to the event, you might not be so uptight about enforcing federal immigration law. If during any one of those prior arrests an officer had been allowed to call the national hotline mantained by ICE, to determine the immigration status of these guys, they would not have been here to murder the poor woman. Did you know that exists purple, the ICE hotline to check immigration status.So all this really is about is a phone call. Everyone who gets stopped for a traffic violation, or light out, goes to jail if drunk. Why is that not racist purple? They weren't looking for a drunk, just pulled him over for a tail light out. Because that is all we are talking about here, enforcing laws on the books. You think if they stop an illegal Russian, or Arab, or Vietnamese he is not going to be arrested and deported? Get real. The law is colorblind if you are legal. It is color blind if you are illegal. You just get arrested now instead of turned lose.
Our mayor is a racist now because he has overturned the "don't ask don't tell" immigration practice of the liberal mayor of Albuquerque he defeated. Oh, and FYI, the murderer, got back into Mexico before he could be arrested. How handy. I'm sure the Mexican government will do all within it's power to hand him over to New Mexico.
The Arizona law is one simple thing Purple, an act of complete desperation. Come live down here and have your car spit on, gang signs tossed at you, and worry about looking someone in the eye, because they think you are bulldogging them, not showing them respect; they shoot you for that here. It's easy to be high and mighty and stand up against a law I am not sure you have read, in spite of your insistence you have. The law forces one group of people to do one thing, law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. They passed the law in desperation because the Feds are not enforcing federal law. Drug cases where the illegal has less than 500, that is 500 pounds of pot are thrown out of court down here. Wake up Purple and realize the whole world is not some ideal where every single persons rights would always be protected 100% of the time. I am willing to give up some of my rights for the right to live in my home without a loaded gun in every room or on my person at all times, and spending 3000 dollars to have bars put on my windows just to feel a bit safe in my home.

Come to the border brother, and take a walk down the border. See how long you last. I give you two hours, on the outside. It's war down here man. Grow up and see the light! Hundreds of people die across the border in the drug war every day, and that is now in Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, all the cities and towns down here. We live with it, and are for the law they passed and more like it. Put some real teeth in the law. It's a start, but only a start. We need a lighted, electric, double razor wire fence on the border from end to end. We have the right to protect our sovereignty. We have eight different types of work visas to come to this country to work legally. Stop the illegals and let them come legally. I am not anti Hispanic. I am anti illegal person. As many as the federal law will allow to come here and work legally, I am all for it. My grandparents were immigrants. They did not sneak across the border in the night and expect full social services, health care and a job though. They came legally and learned English and worked their fingers to the bone on a farm in Nebraska to raise 10 kids. Do you see any reason why I might see someone coming over for a free ride cheapening what my relatives did? Well it cheapens ever legal immigrants hard work, many of them Hispanic, who came legally, learned English, worked hard, fought for our country. No problems Purple, they can all come, I'll welcome them and celebrate Cinco de Mayo with all of them when they do it right. Legally. You should think about what you are arguing for man, you are defending federal criminals, violators of federal immigration laws that have real punishment. Many of them have come across six or more times. It is broken down here purple. That is why the AZ law exists. Take a vaction on the AZ border and do some camping. You will think you are in Afghanistan. You might be safer if you were.

Go Arizona| 5.17.10 @ 10:38PM

not to mention the 2 girls who were killed by a drunk illegal in Virginia Beach a couple of years back. Myra Obendorf and her sanctuary city of Va Bch.

SDProg| 5.17.10 @ 11:29PM

What about the vast majority of illegal immigrants who aren't violent criminals and those that have saved lives?: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....ME_3536135

James| 5.18.10 @ 12:18AM

SDProg, "What about the vast majority of illegal immigrants who aren't violent criminals and those that have saved lives?"
100% of them are federal fugitives!!! WHAT part of that don't you get??? They have violated the laws of the US, and are fugitives from justice. Wake the hell up!! A convicted murderer does the Heimlich on another prisoner on death row, what are we supposed to release him for his good deed? Man, you need to spend a week on the border bro, you might wake up, or your might not, literally.

SDProg| 5.18.10 @ 1:14AM

I clearly said that the vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't violent (key word here) criminals, but I guess you chose to ignore that. Your analogy is faulty and I was only responding to the others pointing to illegal immigrants who committed felonies, so I thought I'd point out an illegal immigrant that saved a child's life. Like all people, illegal immigrants can be good or bad.

Nick| 5.18.10 @ 7:14PM

SDProg,

"Like all people, illegal immigrants can be good or bad."
No they can't.

They have broken the law to get here.
They are line jumpers. Nobody likes line jumpers.
Except liberals.

SDProg| 5.18.10 @ 10:56PM

Nick, go on and deny their humanity, but like you and I they are human and have the capability to perform good works and bad works. Most come here to escape market failure in Mexico and provide for their families. They aren't here to hurt you and for the most part they don't cost us jobs (may actually create jobs by increasing demand for goods and services): http://factcheck.org/2010/05/d.....ost-jobs/. Most only want to stay temporarily, but since the 80s when border policing became more common an increasingly large number of them are staying permanently. Also, illegal immigration isn't a major issue at the moment as we are seeing a net emigration due to the recession. To learn more about illegal immigrants and the reasons they come I suggest you check this book out: http://books.google.com/books?.....p;f;=false

Nick| 5.19.10 @ 12:05AM

SDProg,

"Nick, go on and deny their humanity [...]."

I never denied their humanity. That is a straw man argument, and a lame one at that.

I don't care why illegal aliens come here. They hurt me, and all Americans, because they disrespect and flaunt our laws.

They hurt all resident aliens, because legal aliens and immigrants followed the rules. Like my grandparents did when they brought my mother's family here from Canada. I'm first generation American on my mom's side.

Illegal aliens have NO right to be here. They should have gotten in line behind all the others who are still waiting. This does not deny their humanity.

Nobody likes line jumpers.

SDProg| 5.19.10 @ 1:50AM

You denied their humanity when you said they couldn't be good. Essentially you are saying that the illegal immigrant who saved that boy's life is evil. Apparently illegal border crossing is such a grave sin in your eyes that individuals who paticipate in it are forever seen as evil. Why they come here is vital. How can you prevent further illegal immigration if you don't understand why they're coming? I'd wager if you were in the shoes of many illegal immigrants whose families are struggling to get by you would migrate north as well. Remember people don't eat in the long run, they eat every day. I'd also like to point out that some of our policies like NAFTA have actually spurred migration, so we can't look at this in a vacuum: http://books.google.com/books?.....p;f;=false

Nick| 5.19.10 @ 8:10AM

SDProg,

"You denied their humanity when you said they couldn't be good."

No I didn't, so quit claiming that I did.

Someone who is breaking the law, is not being "good." It is not the same as asserting that they can NEVER be good, which I never did.

Again, this is a straw man argument, by definition. Why are you wasting time falsely accusing me of stating something I never claimed, if not to obscure the issue?

"How can you prevent further illegal immigration if you don't understand why they're coming?"

By building, and finishing, the border fence, that's how. And, punishing companies that hire illegal aliens. That will stop aliens from coming.

Although I empathize with their plight, that doesn't excuse illegal aliens violating our laws. There are billions who have it just as rough. Should we let them ALL in?

Illegal aliens are line jumpers. They need to go back to the end of the line. It is only fair to all of those who waited for years to get into this country, obeying the law.

Why don't you care about those people, SDProg?

Why do you care more about people who disobey our laws, than the good people who have obeyed them?
How can you be so cold-hearted?

SDProg| 5.19.10 @ 6:04PM

I said , "Like all people, illegal immigrants can be good or bad."

Your response: "No they can't."

I care about these people and that's why I favor comprehensive immigration reform, effective development aid for Mexico and other developing nations, changes in our drug policy, and a reevaluation of how our policies are affecting illegal immigration.

Obviously, we can't let them all in and nor is that desirable, but I'd also like to mention again that most did and still would stay only temporarily if it wasn't for the increased policing of the border. Yes, the businesses should be punished, but I doubt a border fence would solve the problem of illegal immigration or its causes. They will probably adapt by building taller ladders and/or extending their system of underground tunnels. It could also be a potential economic burden, which is especially worrisome as illegal immigrants may in fact help our economy. Additionally, it would likely sour relations with Mexico. By addressing the causes directly we can solve the problem and help people around the world, which is preferable to building a wall in my view.

Nick| 5.19.10 @ 8:36PM

SDProg,

So, you are claiming that your statement should be inferred to mean that people can only be either "good" or "bad?" That makes no sense.

All I meant by "No they can't" was, that by violating the laws of our great nation to get here, illegal aliens are "law-breakers", and therefore cannot be called "good." Do you consider someone who knows they are breaking the law, and doesn't try to rectify the situation, "good?"

Where in the Constitution is the Congress authorized to give any foreign nation aid, payed for by the American taxpayers? If you want to give developing nations aid, be my guest. Leave me out of it.

I noticed you failed to mention the "good" people who followed our laws to immigrate to this country, yet again. Why don't you care about fundamental fairness for these poor people? Is it FAIR to those who followed the rules, to let the ones who didn't get a free pass? I would like an answer to this point, please.

It is not difficult to get from America into Mexico. You can walk across the Rio Grande bridge in El Paso with no problems.

Fences and walls have put a huge dent in illegal crossings where they have been built. Especially in San Diego. Also, I could care less if it would "sour" our relations with Mexico. Punishing the companies that hire illegal aliens addresses the cause directly.

Illegal aliens are line jumpers who need to be sent to the back of the line. Stat!

SDProg| 5.20.10 @ 10:49AM

I was putting it into the black-and-white terms conservatives usually like. I still consider the illegal immigrant who saved that child's life good, but you are free to believe what you want. The reason why those fences have had an effect is because rather than putting in the extra effort to climb the wall or build below them they just move further east to cross the border where there's no such fence. That's one of the reasons more have been entering from Arizona than California. The harsher conditions of Arizona have also been leading to more deaths. If a fence was installed across the whole border then it's likely they would start resorting to such measures. I also question how many of these immigrants attempting to come in legally would come in illegally if they had the chance? I'll have to research this, but I agree that it isn't fair, but it also isn't fair how many illegal immigrants live as well. Hate to break this to you, but the US government has given aid to foreign nations for years. The key is reforming development aid, so it's more effective. Also, why don't you care that that some the policies the US has promoted and implemented have harmed the Mexican economy and thus spuurred migration? Do you not care how our drug policy has severely harmed Mexico or how our agricultural subsidies have severly harmed the agricultural sector in Mexico? Again, let's not look at this in a vacuum.

Nick| 5.20.10 @ 12:51PM

SDProg,

"I was putting it into the black-and-white terms conservatives usually like."

Putting what into "black-and-white terms?" That people can only be "good" or only "bad?" Still makes no sense.

"[...] they just move further east to cross the border where there's no such fence."

That is not true. There have been many tunnels discovered between San Diego and Tijuana. But, people-trafficing has still dropped significantly.

"[...] but it also isn't fair how many illegal immigrants live as well."

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

You can question all you want. The fact is that the waiting list is around 5 years to get here. So, there are many people who are abiding by our laws and patiently waiting their turn.

I asked you where in the Constitution Congress has the power to give foreign aid, not how long they have been violating the Constitution.

I don't care, because I'm an American. Which means that I care what happens in the U.S. first and foremost.

Our drug policy has not "severely harmed Mexico." That country has been damaged by over 80 years of marxist governments running it into the ground.

I believe it is you that are looking at this problem in a vacuum.

You have still given no compelling answer as to why illegal aliens should be able to jump to the head of line of all those "good" people who are following our laws, SDProg.

SDProg| 5.20.10 @ 6:31PM

Black-and-white as in dualism? Good-and-Bad/Evil fits into such a scheme.

Yes, it is true. It doesn't mean some people still don't try to get into California (and transport drugs) through such tunnels, but the majority of illegal immigrants are crossing the border further east.

"But now, because urban entries in places like San Diego and El Paso have been nearly sealed by fences, technology and agents, illegal immigrants have been forced to try to cross here in southern Arizona, one of the most inhospitable places on earth. "

From http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05.....icans.html

I meant that it isn't fair the manner in which illegal immigrants have to live. I don't want to get into a drawn out debate over the various strands of originalism and non-originalism, but I would also like to point out that foreign aid isn't explicitly banned either.

Our drug policy has had a negative impact throughout Latin America: http://www.coha.org/time-to-de.....washington’s-international-drug-policies/

Other policies have adversely affected Mexico and many of these are outlined in the book preview I linked to earlier. This isn't to say Mexican governments don't bear the brunt of responsibility, but American meddling hasn't helped as far as I can tell.

I never said they should be allowed to jump ahead, so I don't need to provide an answer. I will say that I empathize with them and understand why they cross the border illegally.

Nick| 5.21.10 @ 5:32PM

SDProg,

Yes, you are correct. I was not as clear as I should've been. I meant that not ALL the human trafficking moved east. Some did not.

But, if the fence is continued to east, the result will be the same as in San Diego. Only a few will try elaborate schemes to evade our laws.

It is not fair the way many people live around the world. It is not the responsibility of Americans and our tax dollars to remedy that situation. Charity and promoting republican government would do much more to help those people.

I'm sorry, I mistakenly presumed you wanted all the illegal aliens to be able to stay here. Just like you believed, wrongly, that I was denying the humanity of illegal aliens.

You have admitted that we can't let everyone in. That means we must have an ordered system of picking who is allowed to move to this country. Which we do.

Those who will not follow our system should not be allowed to profit from their law-breaking, and must be made to go back home.

SDProg| 5.22.10 @ 11:11AM

If such a fence were put in place it would probably decrease the amount of illegal immigrants entering the United States, but I don't believe it would be a significant decline. If they're willing to risk their lives traversing the scorching hot Arizona desert with little water then I believe these elaborate schemes would become all the more common. It isn't the responsibility of Americans alone, but we can take a leading role. The government also doesn't necesssarily have to dispurse the aid, but can conduct research on the effectiveness of aid and offer recommendations to NGOs and developing countries. I don't believe we can possibly deport all of the illegal immigrants who have made their way into the US, so that's why I favor immigration reform. We should try to prevent further illegal immigration, but I believe this is best done by addressing the conditions that have made many illegal immigrants so desperate.

Nick| 5.22.10 @ 8:26PM

SDProg,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Although, I do agree that the conditions need to be addressed.

I belive they are. Mexicans have finally moved away from marxist governments. The current president of Mexico is waging war against the drug cartels and trying to clean out the army.

I'm all for aiding in both those endeavours. In constitutionally approved ways, of course.

Purpleguy| 5.18.10 @ 12:31AM

I am truly sorry to hear of all the crime that you find around yours or in any state, city or neighborhood around the country. I am no bleeding heart liberal, but violent crime is not all crime. That's what it is, violent. It certainly needs to be controlled and the criminals brought to justice. And, that doesn't matter where you came from or what color, nationality, sex or anything else about a person.

I'm sure you don't think for one minute that the border states are in some unique position that is not felt anywhere else in the country. You mention taking a trip, as if I have never seen crime-ridden areas. Well, I beg to point out that if you took a trip to New York, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. all have areas of the cities that are as bad or worse than what you describe in Arizona. That isn't always just the areas of urban decay, either. Suburban areas have their own crime troubles too. Gangs are violent everywhere fighting for turf or drugs, what have you.

What IS unique about the crime attached to illegal immigration, or at least blamed on illegal immigrants is that you can ID a possible illegal by the color of their skin. That's why Jim Crow laws in the South were so easy to enforce - it was obvious who were the black people ... but it just gave the Southern white folk that had an inkling to be racist a reason to be racist. The fear on the anti-AZ law side is this is a step in that direction again. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. Any one of us could find ourselves in a group that the Government wants to single out for abuse, so we need to protect all groups from the Government, or no groups are really safe from the Government.

This is not meant to diminish the fear and concern that Arizonans feel ... I'm sure it's real and I get that. But they are going about it the wrong way. I agree with a closing of the border, by fence or wall or however else it could be closed. I would think all the border states could create a regional commission to work out how to accomplish that through all the states, similar to how the Great Lakes states have created a regional authority to protect the Great Lakes. The only real parallel here is that what the Federal Govt isn't doing, the states band together and lobby the Feds, or pass laws in cooperation with each other to accomplish some if not all what is needed.

I completely agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, but throwing all civil liberties out the window, or at least the ones in question that are protected by the 4th and 14th Amendments at least, in the interest of security, doesn't make sense. Ultimately, all of our families came over as immigrants, if they are not American Indian, so we can certainly understand what are forebears endured to pursue the American dream.

And, yes I have read the AZ bill, I have it as a .pdf file, and I'm sure you can google it and find it for yourself. Most of the bill deals with penalties and how they should be meted out, and steps to take when encountering an illegal, and how employers are to be treated. It's the sections that deal with what law enforcement is expected to do that has everyone concerned. I have posted copies of those sections from SB1070 above in this thread.

It's hard to defend people that don't deserve it, but that's what America does, and what she stands for.

Remember, Benjamin Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ""

John McCain| 5.18.10 @ 2:26PM

I did not get very far into your post before encountering this: "one of five illegals, who had each been arrested a minimum of four times each prior to the event, you might not be so uptight about enforcing federal immigration law. If during any one of those prior arrests an officer had been allowed to call the national hotline mantained by ICE"
So, some 'illegals' ere arrested four times; why were they still out on the streets then?
And, what prohibits law enforcement from calling ICE and determining the status of a suspected illegal?
They had arrested these guys four times previously, and, one would assume, they had no papers showing that they were legally here. Why, then, were they not deported or kept in jail?
In fact, they were apparently merely set free by law enforcement. It reads to me like law enforcement dropped the ball multiple times, so who do you blame?

Irritated Amy| 5.17.10 @ 9:23PM

Okay... I just read what everyone has written, and I've got to say, that I am more than willing, and proud to show my I.D. no matter where I am!!! Go Arizona!!!! :)

Nate| 5.17.10 @ 9:52PM

Spoken like a true fascist.

Nick| 5.17.10 @ 11:17PM

Spoken like a true progressive, socialist, marxist, terrorist-loving, law enforcement-hating, bleeding heart, liberal.

WAKE UP| 5.17.10 @ 10:47PM

Good on you Amy; spoken like a truly free, courageous person.

WAKE UP| 5.17.10 @ 10:35PM

Kagan is "estranged from America". Well, what do expect when she's nominated by the first President in history who is profoundly, unhappily UN-American?

Marc Jeric| 5.18.10 @ 1:45AM

Regarding ACLU - until 1939 (Soviet-Hitler pact) it was the legal arm of the Communist Party USA. Today it is "independent" - but its policies have stayed the same: DESTROY AMERICA!
As for "profiling":
1) 100% of jihadi terrorists are Muslims, and most of them are Arabs;
2) 70% of all murders, or about 14,000/year, are committed by black males 18-30 years of age, and 90% of their victims are other blacks, or about 12,000/year;
3) 95% of all illegal aliens here are Mexican Indians and mestizos (Mayas, Olmecas, Aztecas, Toltecas, etc.);
it follows logically that to abstain from profiling is a crime in itself! It is a conspiracy to commit crimes!

Marc Jeric| 5.18.10 @ 1:49AM

As for La Kagan: if I had been born a woman as ugly as La Sotomayor, or La Ginzburg, of La Kagan herself (God forbid!), I would also have become a rabid communist and even a lesbian!

Jerome Borden| 5.18.10 @ 2:41AM

Anybody notice what EK did while she was working in the Clinton Administration. There is about 10,000 pages in that pile and some of it had to do with getting around the Hyde Amendment.

antidote| 5.18.10 @ 4:16PM

Marc Jerk: quit pulling stats our of your backside. It really makes you look stupid and hateful, not that you care.

most recent stats I could find on a legitimate website indicate mexican undocumented immigrants are estimated at around 54%. Only 9% of them are in Arizona. also your murder stats are so far off it is laughable. Only about 7000 murders in u.s. in "07 (most recent available) and of those only about 50% were black offenders but most of their victims were also black.

Oh and let's not forget the outrageously sexist comment on Kagan. It always gets down to the looks. If a woman doesn't meet your standard of beauty, she must be a lesbian.

you people are pathetic.

antidote| 5.18.10 @ 4:39PM

Well let's see how well Arizona does with their new law. When their jails are busting at the seams and they have no room for the violent, dangerous criminals because it is full of immigrants coming here to work and support their families. Yes they come here illegally, but once again the ignorant americans look for bandaid solutions to long festering, systemic problems.

The reason the Feds have been slow to enforce is $$$$$$$. How much money do you want to spend enforcing our borders? You deport them, they come back, again and again. WE have not got the manpower, the jail space and the $$$$ to enforce immigration laws. The immigration system is busting at the seams.

Build a wall? they will climb over it, or drive through in someone's trunk. I live in Miami and the cuban refugees risk life and limb to come across the Florida straits on makeshift rafts. Or their families pay smugglers to bring them over in boat. WE can''t build a wall in the caribbean.

We are a free country, our borders are porous, by design, that is part of our tradition of freedom.

You want to stop illegal immigration? penalize the employers who make it worth their while to risk life and limb to get here. Take the money you would spend on enforcement and invest in the Mexican economy so they can stay home and support their families. Why aren't the Canadians dying to get into to U.S.? They have a strong economy and single payer health care. They think we are morons, I agree with them.

Willy| 5.19.10 @ 1:02PM

Kylie, where in the AZ law does it allow one to pull over people who "look Hispanic".
Please read the AZ law, the Federal government already has more power than allowed by the AZ law.

Jack Kinch(1uncle)| 5.19.10 @ 1:59PM

We are overpopulated with Criminals and tax users mostly all demos. The people sneaking across the border are not Swedes. They are hispanic mostly Mexican.

ronifer| 5.19.10 @ 2:58PM

C'mon folks ! We have a Marxist president doing his darnedest to bankrupt our country and get us to swing into Socialism ! Who did you expect he would select for the job ? OF COURSE ! ANOTHER RIP-ROARING COMMIE !

duck| 5.20.10 @ 12:26PM

Maybe using the Mexican laws on immigration here in the states would make things equal between the two countries...except in the view of democrats....

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

# In Mexico legally;

# Have the means to sustain themselves economically;

# Not destined to be burdens on society;

# Of economic and social benefit to society;

# Of good character and have no criminal records; and

# Contributors to the general well being of the nation.

"The law also ensures that:

# Authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

# Foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

# Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;

# Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

# Foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

# Those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison."

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

# Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of
contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

# Immigration officials must 'ensure' that 'immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance' and for their dependents. (Article 34)

# Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets 'the equilibrium of the national demographics,' when foreigners are deemed detrimental to 'economic or national interests,' when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and
when 'they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.' (Article 37)

# The Secretary of Governance may 'suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.' (Article 38)

# Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

# Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

# A National Population Registry keeps track of 'every single individual who comprises the population of the country,' and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

# A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

# Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

# Foreigners who sign government documents 'with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses' are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

# Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

# Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

# Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico - such as working with out a permit - can also be imprisoned.

# Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

# A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally. (Article 123)

# Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

# Foreigners who 'attempt against national sovereignty or security' will be deported. (Article 126)

# Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law.

# A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

# Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)"

fjdk| 7.1.10 @ 3:46AM

beijing massage