-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 227 comments
-
The Pigs of Pigford
April 30, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Overstating Boston
April 26, 2013 | 143 comments
Constitutional Opinions
Verrilli’s Latest Losing Hand
When even an Obama appointed justice won’t allow herself to be patronized, you know you’ve had a bad day.
“It seems to me that the Federal Government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally or not.” — Chief Justice John Roberts
Like a poker player who keeps getting dealt nothing better than a pair of threes, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli has had a bad month. His attempt to defend the indefensible “individual mandate” provision of Obamacare has left even the most confident liberals worried that the Supreme Court will overturn at least that part of the law, and perhaps all of it.
And on Wednesday, Verrilli was tasked by the Obama administration to play an only slightly better hand as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments (transcript here) in the federal government’s challenge to four provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070. (The four provisions at issue are Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6.)
The lead attorney for Arizona, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, spoke first, primarily answering questions about whether the law, in particular its Section 2(B) which requires law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they’ve stopped for other reasons if a “reasonable suspicion exists that the person…is unlawfully present in the United States,” would cause citizens and resident aliens to be detained for longer than they otherwise would be.
Clement said the answer would generally be no, and in all cases would be subject to Fourth Amendment limits on reasonable detention.
Clement was also asked by several Justices about federal preemption, in other words whether the Arizona law unconstitutionally interfered with federal responsibility in the area of immigration, though even the liberal Hispanic Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not seem convinced that was the case.
The day got no better for General Verrilli when he said that it is the federal government’s position that Arizona does not have the power to remove illegal aliens from within its borders because “the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government.”
Justice Antonin Scalia pounced: “But all that means is that the Government can set forth the rules concerning who belongs in this country. But if, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power? What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?”
Scalia noted further that “The Constitution recognizes that there is such a thing as State borders and the States can police their borders, even to the point of inspecting incoming shipments to exclude diseased material.”
Verrilli complained that Arizona is “pursuing a policy that maximizes the apprehension of unlawfully present aliens so they can be jailed as criminals in Arizona unless the Federal Government agrees to direct its enforcement resources to remove [them].”
Chief Justice John Roberts then cut to the heart of the matter: “Well, if that state does — well, that’s a question of enforcement priorities.”
Verrilli turned his argument toward the mandatory nature of SB 1070, namely that law enforcement officials must check the immigration status of someone detained for another reason when there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
Justice Alito asked if it would be a violation of federal law if, as is permissible under current law, every Arizona law enforcement official voluntarily checked on the immigration status of every person that they would mandatorily have to verify under SB 1070. Verrilli admitted “No, it wouldn’t be.”
Further, Chief Justice Roberts noted that federal immigration authorities are not required to take any action if they choose not to, even if the person is illegally present, and suggested that the law therefore does not overstep federal authority. One can imagine a wry smile crossing Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s face when Roberts twisted the knife: “It seems to me that the Federal Government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally or not.”
Verrilli’s response was shorthand for the federal government wanting to be able to set the state’s priorities, even if that meant not enforcing federal law despite damage to the state. Scalia was, as usual, ready with an incisive rebuttal:
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (148) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Constitutional Opinions
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/26/verrillis-latest-losing-hand
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Brian Mc| 4.26.12 @ 6:31AM
I find your last paragraph a bit eye opening, Ross. The States will always be a "Please sir, may I have more" type institution just so long as the seventeenth amendment is in play. The cowering and hopes for 'more' must stop and this cannot occur until full banishment of that travesty to our Constitution.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 8:03AM
Brian, while your point is probably a little subtle for the average American (if not for the intelligent readers of these pages), I do agree with you, though without much hope for repeal of the 17th.
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 8:47AM
Could you illuminate the connection between the 17th Amendment which appears to address the qualifications of Senators' electors and the filling of Senate vacancies and the States' predilection for federal largesse, please?
Subtle I can usually get, although it takes me a fair amount of time and sweat. But this subtlety takes on a decidedly opaque cast to my eyes.
Give it a try, willya, please?
bull-gator| 4.26.12 @ 8:58AM
in essence, I think the 17th amendment inadvertently (and in practice) removed the obligation of an elected senator (as opposed as an appointed one) to act as a champion on behalf of the state from which he was elected. Thereby creating, essentially, a House of Lords, in a represenative republic government. No wonder it doesn't work so well.
Larry| 4.26.12 @ 7:05PM
bull, how does it make that much of a difference? It was intended from the beginning to act very much like a House of Lords in many respects. If the 17th Amendment changed that, I fail to see it. What was originally hoped was that smaller states would have a better chance of preventing larger states from overwhelming them with legislation that harmed their interests. As it has turned out, I think smaller states (from the standpoint of population, especially) have actually profited more than larger states from the 17th Amendment. For example, Alaska gets, in my opinion, a disproportionately large amount of money per capita than Texas for transportation purposes (e.g. the Bridge to Nowhere) and a hugely disproportionate amount of earmarks. This is legislation initiated, constitutionally, in the House of Representatives!
This argument is a lot about nothing special. It still comes down to having reasonable, responsible people in political office. Repealing the 17th Amendment will not accomplish that end. A repeal will simply transfer power lines, again, and will in fact create a more potent political elite that is indifferent to the country as a whole and to the people's will.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 9:06AM
A little more here:
http://repeal17now.org/
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 9:30AM
Thanks, bull. Thanks, Ross. Now I see it. And it's a sharp reminder of the law of unintended consequences to boot!
That was a break from pitchfork-sharpening well worth the time! I learned something today.
Don't Tread On Me.
Brian Mc| 4.26.12 @ 5:30PM
And thanks for picking up where I left off, gentlemen...I went fishing shortly after posting since I had the day off. Bluegill and crappie for dinner!
Larry| 4.26.12 @ 6:55PM
I seriously doubt that repeal of the 17th Amendment would affect the "please sir, may I have more" mentality of either states or state politicians. Given the fact that there was still rampant pork-barreling and logrolling even in the 19th century, along with significant corruption at the Federal level (albeit on a much smaller scale than now), prior to enactment of the 17th Amendment, I am not encouraged to believe that things will be different, but would in fact be worse. Because Senators will use influence to curry and buy favor with and for state governors, state legislators, and state bureaucrats seeking largesse from the Federal government. Which Senators will then not be elected by the people.
Who really believes that someone like Dick Lugar would have already been recalled by the Indiana Legislature? If there is someone, I have swamp land in Florida and Texas to sell you.
Mutt the Hoople| 4.26.12 @ 6:34AM
Some people said that the Obama Administration's deliberately tanked their arguments on Obamacare so the issue would be off the table by the November elections. I think it all might be simpler than that- Obama, and his Administration, are simply stupid and incompetent.
richard ryan| 4.26.12 @ 8:01AM
I don't think they are stupid (Holder, maybe). They are surrounded by a supportive mainstream media that hails their ideas and never challenges them. When they run into facts and concrete laws, suddenly they are very alone and left with only their own garbage arguments.
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 8:26AM
See, they do believe their own press releases..maybe because the NYT prints them verbatim under her own bylines...That never ends well.
Richard H. Davis| 4.26.12 @ 2:45PM
As a liberal, I would say that the Holder Justice Department seems to be uncommonly incompetent. The Bush Justice Department was also, but deliberately so, not accidentally so, as seems to be the case with the Holder Justice Department. For instance, we NOW know that Congress has mandated spending before - at least three time, and that one of those times involved health care, and the Congress that passed those laws contained a fair number of the members of the Constitutional Convention. Apparently any number of historians have known this all along - indeed, you can find it in Wikipedia, backed up by Wikisource. And yet the Holder Justice Department apparently never learned about this.
buckeyeman| 4.26.12 @ 9:39AM
They are leftists. The functioning of the leftist mind is nearly inscrutible (although I have a theory). They are immune to facts, reality, and especially logic.
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 9:43AM
Inscrutable? How about "undetectable?"
BarocheDique | 4.26.12 @ 7:17AM
Well done Ross. The incompetence of this administration is just staggering at times, yet when combined with their intentional contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, they seem as out of touch as Klingons. One has to wonder.....do they really believe their own BS?
JAWilson| 4.26.12 @ 7:20AM
Shouldn't a good attorney counsel their client when their position is bad? Verrilli must be dying inside as an attorney mouthing those statements, unless he's a true believer as well.
Appleby| 4.26.12 @ 7:23AM
These Sixties arguments didn't make any sense when Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden were making them, and they don't make any more sense now that everybody's old and gray. The best part about bringing them all up one after another is the opportunity for the March and Chant Brigade to see and hear what a real argument is like -- and that it's possible to construct such an argument totally without saying f*** and s***.
Clint| 4.26.12 @ 7:43AM
Illegal Immigration: Mitt Romney Flip-Flops on Illegal Immigrants - WhichMitt.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eey2nX2aMc
TLP| 4.26.12 @ 8:11AM
Will you PLEASE stop it, already?
In the words of one of George Costanza's girlfriends: "It's over. It's over for Bozo."
It's over for Him. It's over for You. It's over for your Popeyes looking Lunatic Candidate.
Even a Rubber Room Guy, like you, has to see that. Right? You sound like an idiot.
Why don't you pull yourself together, like Jack has, and go back to blaming the Jews for everything from the Burning of your beloved Reichstag, to the gooey brown stain that you find in your underpants every night, dip your finger in, and smell, just to be sure.
Display a little Self Respect, for God's sake.
Clint| 4.26.12 @ 11:00AM
Eat Your Mittens' Kitten Pussy Chow, TLP.
buckeyeman| 4.26.12 @ 9:41AM
Are we still "moving on to the convention"?
Clint| 4.26.12 @ 11:07AM
Sure We Are Stupid Ass.
We Tea Party Patriots Dr.Ron Paul Supporters Voted In 5 Dr.Ron Paul Delegates And 11 Dr.Ron Paul Alternate Delegates Tuesday, In Pennsylvania.
Mike Hawk| 4.26.12 @ 9:43AM
Cut it out Clint. Your job as Press Secretary for Rube Paul is not going to materialize. He's retiring. Maybe if he materialized as the first Octanegarian candidate in 2016 , your hopes may be regenerated, but still unrealized.
Clint| 4.26.12 @ 11:02AM
Then, Eat Some Mittens' Kitten Pussy Chow, Little Micky Hawklette.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 2:11PM
Clint: Serious question...how old are you?
Alan| 4.26.12 @ 2:50PM
Ross, this is a teenager. No mature adult behaves in this manner and has the time to waste. Can I ask a question? Why is this clown not being punted off this board.
Todd S| 4.26.12 @ 3:00PM
Seriously Ross, can we get rid of this clown Clint and his ridiculous Ron Paul spamming? I don't expect you to monitor the comments but someone should. His comments are certainly profane, bigoted and grossly impolite and never add to the conversation.
Alan| 4.26.12 @ 3:26PM
Thank you Todd. Amen. Make it a members only forum where you have to sign up. I have moderated several message boards and on most you can just ban an IP address or email address and its done, it doesn't need a constant moderator. The people running this website really need to start enforcing or install a message board system that allows permanent removal.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 3:50PM
I actually do monitor comments to my own articles from time to time and do have the ability to delete comments, though not to block a commenter.
Clint wastes a lot of time, but I also think he's a "useful idiot" in terms of how he represents the people he claims to idolize.
Makes me feel much more comfortable that Ron Paul won't win anything -- though I don't deeply dislike Ron Paul except on some of his foreign policy positions which are just suicidal.
Alan| 4.26.12 @ 4:36PM
I can see your point about useful idiots, but isn't it when they are no longer useful that the time comes to send them off to useless land? Useful idiots have expiration dates, I would submit Clint has gone on long past his and now entered into his pain in the ass disruption stage. Do the owners of this website have ANY idea of what goes on here at all?
Todd S| 4.26.12 @ 5:27PM
True that
The Bruce| 4.26.12 @ 11:24PM
Ross,
He's about 15, mentally. That's about all I can say with certainty as I have no photo of him.
Hawaii Jeff| 4.28.12 @ 3:43PM
Is Clint really Joe Biden?
TLP| 4.26.12 @ 7:45AM
I can't believe I'm writing this, but that was a good article.
Nothing about Yourself, or one of your "Fabulous Trips" to Malaria World, or Tse Fly Town, or Flies on your Face Land. Just a good story.
I think I need some booze, and a Rorschach Blot Test. ( And, no Alan, that's not one of those tests that you need after waking up on the Men's Room Floor on a Sunday Morning. Those are different.)
I think that I'm starting to feel as if we've still got a chance. Is it possible, after 50 Years of Liberal Illogicy, that COMMON SENSE is making a comeback?
I hear a lot of Compassion in your words, for a man who neither Deserves, or Requires any. Aux Contra-ire. Methinks that Professor Plum is getting just what he deserves. I believe that he is long past due, for the Intellectual BEATDOWN that he is now recieving. The kind that he has, no doubt inflicted on so many others who have confronted his Ivory Tower Ccksure Profundities in the past.
How long has it been since this useless bag of meat has been Punched in the face, with THE OBVIOUS. Remember who we're talking about. He's not just an Elitist. He's an ELITE Elitist. He's got Sheepskins on the walls, like Alan's got pictures of Ricky Martin using the Urinal.
Why, he's so smart, that if you asked him: What is 2+2 ? He would answer you thusly:
"You ask an important question. One that Mankind has grappled with throughout it's existence on this planet. Even while Raping the land for its Natural Resources, Exterminating Species of Animal Life and Faunae, an Effecting the Planets Natural Climate Cycles our Ancestors pondered such eventualities as 2+2.
I believe that there are too many Variables for one to assume that there is only one rift answer. There's a Racial Quotient, of course, that needs to be figured in. And it doesn't have to be Blatant. Such Mathematical Equations can turn on a dime should there be any evidence of a DISPARATE Racial Outcome.
Ones' Environment and Social Standing, can effect the outcome of 2+2. Is there a Broken Home variable? Is this an instance of an Out of Wedlock Birth, to a Single Mother? Are any of the 2's on Welfare, in Drug Rehab, or have they ever been to Prison because of a Trumped Up Charges made by a Racist White Cop?
It would be easy to just go the easy route, and proclaim that, OBVIOUSLY, everyone KNOWS that 2+2=4. But it's more than that. It has to be. We need a Concensus when dealing with problems. And, not just the problems that jump out at us from the Front Pages. But the Mundane Problems, as well. I believe that all of the 2+2's deserve as much of our time, and dare I say...Our RESPECT, that the E=mc2's get.
We need Study Groups, and Fact Finding Commissions. We need to know how others feel about these problems, and not move along on the Arrogant Presumption that WE and WE ALONE, have the final say on what is right and what is wrong."
Professor?
"Yes?"
2+2?
"I'm thinking."
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 8:05AM
I can believe I'm writing this:
Thanks, Tim.
We are, after all, on the same team most of the time.
Best,
Ross
TLP| 4.26.12 @ 8:15AM
See?
We should be friends, now.
Can I borrow $500?
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 8:29AM
TLP, it mighta worked if you waited for Ross to say OK...
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 8:29AM
To your "we should be friends now" comment...
TLP| 4.26.12 @ 9:31AM
I spent an hour and a half on my comment, and all you wanna talk about is this?
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 9:42AM
Finding no mistake, we just have to let it stand - overlooking the fat-fingered typing issues.
I take it as a plus when no one comments on some of my posts - sort of getting to have the last word.
Or nobody cared or comprehended, my post.
FWIW - I got your post, and looks like I'm not alone. It's good.
Ground Control| 4.26.12 @ 12:28PM
It took you an hour and a half to write "we should be friends now" ??? ;-)
TLP| 4.26.12 @ 4:12PM
Idiot.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 9:07AM
How's your credit? ;-)
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 9:31AM
Ever the trader, that one!! Missing NO opportunity...
Alan| 4.26.12 @ 3:28PM
I've got 52 ounces of gold, do I hold on or sell it now?
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 5:09PM
I'm not much help on this. I own a silver mining stock but worried about metals.
Alan| 4.26.12 @ 6:32PM
The wife bought a chunk of the Nickel mine going in the upper peninsula of Michigan i.e. Kennecott. Billions to be mined.
The Bruce| 4.26.12 @ 11:47PM
Alan,
Don't you dare sell until hits at least $2K (and I think it'll go much higher).
W| 4.26.12 @ 11:27AM
Tim
Ask for $5,000, see what he offers.
Ground Control| 4.26.12 @ 12:29PM
Careful, it's still a loan and he has to pay it back, unless of course he is a Democrat.
TLP| 4.26.12 @ 4:15PM
Will somebody PLEASE read my Original Comment?
It's the best one I've ever done.
Drunken Sailor| 4.26.12 @ 4:42PM
Well, one of the best anway. And a lot less bitter. See what a good nights sleep can do ;). Nice Job TLP.
TLP| 4.26.12 @ 6:22PM
Understood.
Thanks, buddy.
skip| 4.26.12 @ 9:38PM
It depends on what the meaning of the character '2' is. If the -- if he -- if '2' means two and never has been, that is not -- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.
Ground Control| 4.26.12 @ 11:25PM
I DID read it. It IS good!
W| 4.26.12 @ 5:46PM
GC
We have to pay back loans?
The Bruce| 4.26.12 @ 11:53PM
TLP,
I'll loan you $500 if you don't mind me charging you 7 points on the vig.
Born Loser| 4.28.12 @ 12:12PM
What's the over/under?
JR Gierlach| 4.26.12 @ 11:16AM
Bravo Sir; giving PBHO the benefit of the doubt that the press so loves to provide to other lefties, the President is "Stupid Smart." 'Heis so smart, he couldn't pout pizz out of a boot if the instructions were on the heel. He is so smart, he couldn't find his ass with both hands and a compass." You get the drift.
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe| 4.26.12 @ 9:13PM
Thanks TLP.
It's refreshing to read (even if it took you SUCH a long time to write it; DO keep plinking, friend.) that there are a few men who haven't reduced their classical educations to a battle over 'who's smarter than who'. (Read: EGO, plain an' simple.)
I get so weary of folks who enjoy being 'the smartest lawyer on the block' when they are really only the most corrupted ( where the word 'block' should then be changed from 'suburb' to olde English's happy definition.)
Want to be a 'real student of WORD'? Let's all try, - and we'll not be needing 'Miss Barbara's magic mirror to do so, fellas.) Let's toss those silly tools we've been indoctrinated with - and finally make use of our real intellects.
There's a great scripture verse (there always is, I suppose that SHOULD go without saying...but, I type to the 'the biblically illiterate' here) that applies to TLP's 2+2 inquiry which 'supposed learned men' refuse to speak out.
It's found in Romans chapter 1 - verse 22: (I especially enjoy the New Living Translation)
"Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools."
(I especially like 'utter' in that I tend to see the word picture it brings to mind... thinking, of young calves feeding off a warm teat... rather than chewing their own cud - because they are mere BABES, as it were - rather than 'men'.)
(- surely I'd be given 'creative license' that two t's could be exchanged with 'two d's' - as both sound the same - THAT should be happily insignificant for any supposed Linguist, assuredly...
Yet - the fact STILL remains that none of us could look over our grandchildren's writing to see their 'lack of knowledge' of how to 'even spell' - so, I may have to be 'self-correcting' here...depending on the age of audience...)
But, nonetheless - undaunted by mere FACT - we could all run and get out our 'Strongs' to enjoy a great Bible Study about 'fools' by flipping it's pages - or...
if you'd rather - type away on the keys in front of you... OR, even 'better yet' - we could fly into Cleveland Hopkins airport and take that short drive to The Country Club on Lander and just enjoy a pint or two in the 'Mixed Grill' - in order to 'see' and 'thus verify by true Scientific Method - if this verse is really True - for, it is 'lived out' all across the formerly fruited plains of our Nation - on a daily basis.
(Well, hold on... on second thought - some wisdom could perhaps be gleaned from an 'inner city' waiter or two...both 'black' and 'well grounded' on Sunday mornings...who knows for certain...)
So sad that there are too many 'mama's boys' and not enough real men of GOD. Mere boys - playing at life, rather than really living it.
But, try to enjoy your plight nonetheless, Gentlemen - for until you come to the point where you humble those precious 'egos' and tell your Creator that you're truly sorry for that plain ol' arrogance; America is going to continue to be flushed down a humanist crapper.
I mean - 'Come on' guys!
Do you actually 'see' the two feeble little candidates you'll be choosing in November??? Either Mr. 'Marxie' (as opposed to a 'Barbie') or Mr. More Mon. (to be said with a real 'dont worry, be happy' cadence - just perhaps with dread locks...for 'effect'.)
You've had served up to you a real 'toss up' of True Losers. True 'junk politicians' - who think that 'they' can 'become' GOD in one way or the other - and are aspiring to do 'both'.
"Amazing the depths of depravity a man sinks to when one exalts ego over Creator. " I dare opine.
How pathetic when one purports 'self' and the other purports 'self' - and no one with COMMON SENSE comes forward to stand on True Authority rather than 'self-ish-ness' (read: man-made, or man-exalting, 'anything'.)
So, High Fives to you, TLP - for you are correct.
And, you've caused me to 'open up and speak forth' stuff we've been grappling with for well over a couple hundred years now, in the U.S.
So, till our dear 'pseudo-professors' can 'speak' 2+2=4, (Methinks employing a good dose of Pavlovian effort - at this point, should surely do the trick) this world is in fact, is in for a big shake up - of 'Hume -man' proportions - certainly not, GOD's.
Keep positing TLP - your writing IS worth the 'time' it takes to read your words. And, I 'do' have 'the faith' that even the so indoctrinated can be 're-taught' by just going back to The Word of GOD - rather than 'foolish' ways.
Hey - just a 'thought' TLP - since I've just been on a great 'stream of consciousness' ride, would you agree with me that America indeed - has many 'streams' - but, it's LACK OF CONSCIENCE(ness) that she now lacks...?
C.L. Thorpe
Surveying the plight that threatens to become 'America' from the vantage point of The Southern Ocean's Coast AND loving Life
kat| 4.26.12 @ 8:03AM
From your lips to God's (and the Justice's) ears. If only the Obama sham that has been forced upon us all would be exposed before November- the lies, the incompetency, the elitist attitude, the money-laundering of the Treasury for his cronies, the lack of knowledge of how the USA is supposed to work, the contempt of our law, the hatred for our history, the obscuration of his past, the racial bias, the dividing of citizens into demographic groups, the blatant pandering for votes, the likelihood of engaging in voter fraud.
I'm not a big Romney supporter, but at least he loves his country, isn't a Communist, and doesn't eat dog.
A. C. Santore| 4.26.12 @ 9:16AM
Well, when you put it THAT way . . . .
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 9:34AM
Any one hear Obama reading the 'dog' quote from his book? Didn't he continue on noting that he ate snake, too? And then he went on to say that his friend held the belief that, in essence 'you are what you eat.' Well as an eater of dog and snake, hasn't the President owned up to being a dog and a snake?
I vote yes!!!
Riff Raff| 4.26.12 @ 10:48AM
This is a disservice to dogs.
I'm just glad I am not a broccoli.
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 11:24AM
Don't remember Albert Broccoli?
He produced, or directed a number of the early James Bond films. You could do a lot worse than be a Broccoli...
Riff Raff| 4.26.12 @ 12:32PM
Actually he and his heirs have produced ALL of the Bond films save "Never Say Never Again."
It's not easy being green. Like a broccoli.
The Bruce| 4.27.12 @ 12:08AM
I sure hope Bo is all right.
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe| 4.26.12 @ 9:25PM
Kat. 'Mormonism' is the LARGEST CORPORATION on this planet - with (perhaps) the exception of the Queen and her 'boys'.
Have you ever seen 'the legal drug use' those Mormon gals and guys GO THROUGH by ways of our pharmaceutical companies?
The Stepford Wives couldn't be more proud.
C.L. Thorpe
Todd S| 4.26.12 @ 11:40PM
What in God's name are you talking about? Just another loony Mormon hater, get lost clown.
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe| 4.27.12 @ 5:36AM
Hi Todd. I lived in Salt Lake City, Utah for over 15 years and have LDS friends, but I also know a 'corrupt entity' when I see one - let's hope you do, too.
Is a current 'Wikipedia' is a good enough 'source' for you? Read it and weep, Todd:
"Finances
Main article: Finances of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Although the church has not released church-wide financial statements since 1959, in 1997, Time magazine called it one of the world's wealthiest churches per capita.[106] In a June 2011 cover story, Newsweek magazine stated that the LDS church "resembles a sanctified multinational corporation—the General Electric of American religion, with global ambitions and an estimated net worth of $30 billion."[107] Its for-profit, non-profit, and educational subsidiary entities are audited by an independent accounting firm: as of 2007, Deloitte & Touche.[108][109] In addition, the church employs an independent audit department that provides its certification at each annual general conference that church contributions are collected and spent in accordance with church policy.[110]
The church receives significant funds from tithes (ten percent of a member's income) and fast offerings (money given to the church to assist individuals in need). According to the church, tithing and fast offering moneys collected are devoted to ecclesiastical purposes and not used in for-profit ventures.
The church has also invested in for-profit business and real estate ventures such as Bonneville International, Deseret Book Company, and cattle ranches in Utah, Florida, Nebraska, Canada and other locations. However, these ranches are split between Church Welfare Work (Bishops' Storehouse and Welfare Square) for which funds are used from tithing and are not for profit."
Enough said - and I'm not 'just clowning around' when I speak. So, how's your 'name calling' ego doin' now?
Thorpie in Australia's Outback
Todd S| 4.27.12 @ 8:38AM
And your point is what exactly? That the Church is a wise steward of its funds? How about all the money that goes to charitable causes and helping people through hard times instead of just sucking the governments tit? And your claim about "legal drug" use is bullcrap and you know it, that is why I called you a clown. Yeah I lived in Utah as well and I know people like yourself so glad you left.
Bruce| 4.26.12 @ 8:07AM
Great article with one exception. There cannot be a 6-3 decision since one of the justices recused herself.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 9:07AM
Hey Bruce, I actually fixed that already...
Drunken Sailor| 4.26.12 @ 4:43PM
True, Interesting that she recuses herself from this but not Obamacare.
The Bruce (that other one)| 4.27.12 @ 12:12AM
I thought the same thing, and I had no idea she had any involvement whatsoever with SB 1070.
Von Mises Jr| 4.26.12 @ 8:12AM
This fascist nightmare will hopefully be over in nine months. But the larger lesson here is that the ObamaCare and AZ SB1070 Supreme Court hearings prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that liberals/progressives/socialist are NOT THAT SMART.
Forget about Brooksie, but even take Perp for example. The guy/gal/transgender/whatever never answers a question directly. He can't. Just like Verelli, his answers are horse manure. His logic or lack thereof is a series of non sequiturs and unequivocal and ambiguous nonsense.
The left now will definitely throw Verelli under the bus as stupid. But he was Obama's equivalent at Columbia: Flaw Sc"fool" Rearview Dictator (I mean President). He is the best and brightest on the left.
Compare him to Bill Buckley, or the lawyers on the right such as Mark Levin or Jay Sekulow. It is like comparing an aged rib eye to pink slime.
We don't only have numbers on our side; we have all the smart guys!
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 8:31AM
And that's their Best and Brightest having his head handed to him by the 'wise Latina' even!!!
I am not dead yet!
DTOM
The Big E| 4.26.12 @ 8:17AM
"a ruling in favor of Arizona . . . by at least a 6-3 margin seems in the cards."
It won't be 6-3. Justice Kagan recused herself from the Arizona case. Her absence, of course, makes it even less likely that the Obama Administration will prevail on this one.
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 8:35AM
Big E, I'd like you to meet Bruce. As presiding chief of the Hyper-Detailists Anonymous I believe you will find many, many small things to sweat.
Even I stepped over that piece of blown minutia...
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 9:08AM
It's OK, DTOM. I shouldn't have missed that, and I fixed it an hour ago when it was first pointed out to me.
I appreciate the correction by readers. Never said I was perfect, though I try to be sorta close.
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 9:36AM
Hey, I stepped OVER it.
But six sigma quality means only 2 screw-ups per billion opportunities. You'll have to be pretty good from now on...
I'm sure you can do it, though!
The Big E| 4.26.12 @ 10:17AM
"A man's life in these parts often depends on a mere scrap of information."
R Martin| 4.26.12 @ 8:20AM
One gets the sense that Mr. Verrilli is a metaphor for the competence of senior people in the Obama administration. He's right up there with the secretaries of energy, homeland security, health and human services, treasury (gasp!) and, of course the attorney general. The quality of the people Obama relies on should be a campaign issue.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 9:09AM
i think he's competent, but at some point you just can't win in poker if you get terrible cards all the time, even if you're a pretty good player. His boss keeps dealing him terrible cards.
Ground Control| 4.26.12 @ 9:41AM
Then he should fold and wait for the next hand, assuming we can continue the poker analogy. Verilli signed up for this nonsense, so he obviously has some ideological stake in it. Personally, I think he believes his position is correct, even if he can't put it in to words and can't defend it logically.
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 9:47AM
Probably later that day General Verilli expressed another belief of his, probably more strongly-held and better-reasoned. The General was heard to say, "Yes, I believe I'll have another!"
R Martin| 4.26.12 @ 11:10AM
Good one.
Too Late To Impeach| 4.26.12 @ 4:54PM
I guess some lawyers, competent as they may be, think they can "argue" anything, but in this case he's bumping up against an opponent he didn't think would matter: the Constitution!
TrickleUpPolitics| 4.26.12 @ 1:21PM
Exactly, Mr. Kaminsky. As a lawyer, I feel for Mr. Verilli: it's difficult to look competent when you are required to make an argument that no good attorney would make because it's a loser. He is sacrificing his good name at the altar of Obama worship. Sad.
Todd S| 4.26.12 @ 1:54PM
Hard to feel any sympathy for this guy, he could have turned down the gig of being Obama's lapdog lawyer arguing for unconstitutional measures. He deserves to be laughed at.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 2:14PM
For the record, I am not laughing at Verrilli. Maybe at his positions, which his boss makes him take, but if anything I feel bad for the guy.
I don't know how easy it is to "turn down the gig" to be Solicitor General of the United States. Not many bigger resume boosters than that.
Here's a theory: He doesn't like Obama's views so he's muffing the argument. (I don't actually believe that, but it's almost interesting conceptually.)
Todd S| 4.26.12 @ 3:09PM
You would think he got the gig because of he is an unquestioning liberal who will do whatever Obama's bidding is. Isn't that what all of his appointee's are? Ideology comes before competence in the Obama administration, see Lisa Jackson and Eric Holder among others. He may have been competent enough as a lawyer previously but clearly their arguments hold no water under scrutiny just like everything Obama does.
Btw, you are certainly one of my favorite columnist here so keep up the good work. Having worked in the financial industry I appreciate your insight in those matters though you clearly have a broad political knowledge.
Todd S| 4.26.12 @ 3:10PM
One of these days I will proofread better before posting
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 3:52PM
Todd, I do think Verrilli is a liberal, having clerked for Supreme Court Justice Brennan. That doesn't mean that I think he believes every argument he makes...but he probably believes more of them than he should.
And thanks for the compliment.
Larry| 4.26.12 @ 7:10PM
I really don't feel bad for Donald Verrilli. It is something that we lawyers have learned and understand as a hazard of our profession. Life and American politics of this century has dealt Donald Verrilli the hand he has right now, because he is on the wrong side of history. He must learn to deal with it, because he is not long for being Solicitor General once November 2012 has come and gone.
Buck Bradley| 4.26.12 @ 8:40AM
With the mandate Verrilli was defending the indefensible. With the AZ statute, the government's decision to concede that it would be perfectly fine for AZ cops to voluntarily perform the immigration checks required by the law logically doomed any argument Verrilli might have cared to advance. Verrilli may be good or he may stink (given Obama's record I'm inclined to the latter), but Daniel Webster himself could not have made the government's position sound coherent in either of these cases.
TrickleUpPolitics| 4.26.12 @ 1:22PM
Well said.
oldfart| 4.26.12 @ 8:43AM
It has taken me awhile to sort out my take on the Obama Administration. Not that I am slow to perceive what is going on in my environment, just that age has driven home to me (in sometimes brutal fashion) that I freaking don’t know everything and I should give people a chance.
So let us review some situations.
1. The President obviously cannot put together a coherent sentence without a teleprompter. Whoever bragged about his oratory skills was either a liar or a paid pitch man.
2. The AG is racist. Not sure how to put that in a more PC sentence – his actions speak so loudly that I can’t hear a word he is saying. The AG is just as racist as Bull Connor except the skin color of the favored people is different.
3. The entire political support staff to the President (Political appointees) are one of the following:
a. Don Corleone smart. They know what needs to be done but their methods sow the seeds of their own destruction. Can anyone say Greek Tragedy?
b. Blinded by their own sense of self-importance and ideology. What they appear to be trying to do (create a European style Democratic Socialist society) has failed so badly in Europe that the EU is very close to a total economic collapse. But these knuckleheads (to borrow from the POTUS) keep moving forward ignoring the obvious that you can’t have half the population on public assistance, another quarter retired and the tax burden is on the last quarter.
c. A ship of fools. To borrow from Wikipedia: “The ship of fools is an allegory that has long been a fixture in Western literature and art. The allegory depicts a vessel populated by human inhabitants who are deranged, frivolous, or oblivious passengers aboard a ship without a pilot, and seemingly ignorant of their own direction. This concept makes up the framework of the 15th century book Ship of Fools (1494) by Sebastian Brant, which served as the inspiration for Bosch's famous painting, Ship of Fools: a ship—an entire fleet at first—sets off from Basel to the paradise of fools. In literary and artistic compositions of the 15th and 16th centuries.”
d. The Keystone Cops. Again to borrow from Wikipedia: “The Keystone Kops were incompetent fictional policemen, featured in silent film comedies in the early 20th century.” “The term has since come to be used to criticize any group for its mistakes, particularly if the mistakes happened after a great deal of energy and activity, or if there was a lack of coordination among the members of the group. For example, the June 2004 election campaign of the Liberal Party of Canada was compared with "the Keystone Kops running around" by one of its parliamentary members, Carolyn Parrish.[3] In criticizing the Department of Homeland Security's response to Hurricane Katrina, Senator Joseph Lieberman claimed that emergency workers under DHS chief Michael Chertoff "ran around like Keystone Kops, uncertain about what they were supposed to do or uncertain how to do it"
I used to laugh at what I saw going on – now I am crying.
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.26.12 @ 2:53PM
I think you're right to cry. The laws and policies that these people come up with will be enforced by people smarter and nastier than they are, for quite a while into the future.
Larry| 4.26.12 @ 7:12PM
Alas, you are right. But laughing has to do for me, because it is terribly depressing otherwise. Laughing saves my soul and my mind.
Gary B| 4.26.12 @ 9:03AM
I believe the states will be our ultimate defense against the power-hungry elites in DC. I dream of a coalition of states, one fine day, telling the federal government to buzz off. Courageous leaders like Governor Brewer can make that happen. I hope she lives forever.
And, didn't you love that photograph of her sticking her finger in Obama's face at the airport? We sure need a lot more of that. And, a president Romney shouldn't think he's immune from that same treatment. DC is out of control and running amuck.
Peppermint Tea| 4.26.12 @ 9:06AM
The SCOTUS applied logic, reason, and questioning to the Obama Administration's position on "owning" a law and not enforcing it.
Why can't the MS Media try it for a day or two?
Larry| 4.26.12 @ 7:13PM
What? An outrageous suggestion! The MSM applying logic and reason, and asking pertinent questions? /sarc
Geoff Alden| 4.26.12 @ 9:21AM
Beer hand (7 deuce off) is not good. But heads up under the gun, a pair of treys can be a godsend.
But a well written review, almost having the smell of cordite from the administrations former bunker.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 9:42AM
A pair of treys can be played to good effect, but rarely often within a single night of poker, and usually only by the best players.
Verrilli, which a solid attorney, is probably not good enough to win with it.
But I take your point, and perhaps these two hands are more like deuce-seven off-suit than like a pair of threes. That said, I sorta don't think so, in the sense that there is a measurable possibility that he wins -- even though I think he's more than a 2:1 underdog in both of these big cases.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
RGK
albert constantine jr.| 4.26.12 @ 9:55AM
I would like to posit the possibility that the chief reason that Verilli’s arguments appear so lame is that the left is unable to fairly debate the merit of most of their ideas and positions. They tend to gain power through fraud and deception, and once there, prefer to rule by fiat (executive orders) or backroom deals (Obamacare being “deemed” passed through reconciliation, the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker kickback, etc.).
When forced to debate on the substance of an idea on a level playing field, the weakness of their position is generally exposed. As such, they must instead attack their opponents (Arizona and Paul Clement are racist racial profiling Nazis demanding the papers of families going out for ice cream), or even the level playing field itself (Obama’s remarks regarding SCOTUS following the Obamacare arguments there).
The Bruce| 4.27.12 @ 12:41AM
General Verilli found himself in the impossible position of not only trying to put lipstick on a pig, but trying to give the pig a full-body makeover.
A pair of threes indeed.
Anthony| 4.26.12 @ 9:56AM
There is an old and venerable maxim in the legal community that I have used on many occasions when asked to explain why things are not quite turning out as the parties expected and anticipated; "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit".
Despite my antipathy for Obozo and his corrupt administration, watching and listening to Mr.Verrilli attempt to defend the indefensible in both Arizona and Obozocare, brings my protective instincts front and center.
Poor Verrilli, like all trial lawyers who have found themselves in similar situations, one wants to extend a helping hand to a fellow drowning lawyer.
But poor Verrilli looked more like "My Cousin Vinnie", except Vinnie had a much stronger case and Vinnie wasn't quite the gaffe machine Verrilli appears to be. Oh well, at least Verrilli was better dressed than Vinnie.
It would have been fitting for Verrilli to make a final plea to the Justices for mercy and simply whimper "No mas, por favor, no mas" !!!!!
Michael Horvath| 4.26.12 @ 10:08AM
What if you are asked to defend a position that you found opposed your beliefs? The solicitor general's performance on boith the Obamacare and Immigration issues has been cited by many prognosticators, as being incompetent, and not knowing his history, it may either be that he is truly incompetent, bit it may also be that he finds his position undefendable, one either legal or personal grounds?
Sottamayer was asked by an intern what was the vasis for her opinions, and her response was that no one had ever asked her that question, and she did not give an answer, but maybe that ultimately you have to come to realization that if your opinion are not based on absolutes, than there is a problem, and that problem appears to be surfacing for those who preach that standards continue to evolve and no absolutes exist. Is that not the track that the progressives have taken, from the veryu beginning?
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 10:22AM
Could Ms. Sotomayor stumble into understanding that it's not all about her, it's all about the Constitution after all?
One can hope and pray!
Wouldn't that be a hoot! And a half!
michael| 4.26.12 @ 1:51PM
Is it about her or her loss of faith?
DTOM!| 4.26.12 @ 10:23AM
And aren't progressives just modern-day sophists?
Riff Raff| 4.26.12 @ 10:53AM
Yes.
Mark| 4.26.12 @ 10:28AM
We should thank God ObaMao doesn't have a brighter bulb than Verrilli making his cases for both overturning Az's Law and supporting BO-Care. The Left-run public education in the country must not teach the 10th Amendment anymore.
DC| 4.26.12 @ 11:02AM
A good (funny, in spots) article that, with due respect to Mr Kaminsky, misses the point entirely. Team Dear Leader doesn't give a sh*t if it loses this case, or any other. They believe that they will be re-elected, and when they are, they will implement their agenda no matter what the S Ct says the law is. How many previews of this m.o. do we need?
Verilli's performance is, by the way, very much consistent with how most leftist lawyers I've ever dealt with perform under real questioning: they repeat their talking points. Over, and over, and over again. Doesn't matter whether the question is answered (poorly, at all), or ignored. Repeat the talking points.
And from the lawyer's perspective, if you know your client (Dear Leader) doesn't really care, how seriously are you going to prepare for the questions you know are coming? You tailor your effort accordingly. Verilli and his puppet-master have no more respect for the S Ct than they have for most Americans--they are obstacles to the fulfillment of an ideological imperative, and like all others, it's just a matter of stalling, lying, cheating, and stealing enough to get past the next election, after which, America will cease to be, without a bloody civil war re-settling things, and/or secession of a majority of current U.S. states.
Bill| 4.26.12 @ 11:58AM
My Veep choices:
1. Bob McDonald: Southern heritage
2. Chris Chritie: Straight talker, no apology
3. Kelly Ayotte: Women votes
4. Pat Toomey: Anti-tax crusader
5. Rob Portman: Buckeye auditor
6. Jeb Bush: Sunshine Guru
7. Paul Ryan: Genius
8. Marco Rubio: DREAM Act (?)
And the VP nominee is ..........You decide.
loulou| 4.26.12 @ 12:29PM
What a hodgepodge of RINOs. With 2 exceptions, maybe 3.
Bill| 4.26.12 @ 1:25PM
I welcome your inputs.
Vic| 4.26.12 @ 2:56PM
6 of them will add strength to the ticket (never heard of Portman & Ayotte who may be the RINO's you are talking about), as they are all better than Romney.
Bill| 4.26.12 @ 3:51PM
I don't like Marco Rubio.
Owen K| 4.26.12 @ 6:57PM
What has that got to do with this article?
The Bruce| 4.27.12 @ 12:59AM
Absolutely nothing!!! It's nothing more than an (completely) off-topic robo-rant.
Rhoetus| 4.26.12 @ 2:35PM
Gov. Jan Brewer for Veep- Please!
Vic| 4.26.12 @ 2:57PM
True! She will kick Obozo's ass bigtime. He will feel worse than the dressing down he got on the tarmac.
Bill| 4.26.12 @ 3:52PM
I love Gov. Brewer for her courage on immigration.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 3:53PM
You may not like to hear this, but very hawkish immigration views are NOT good politics. Just ask J.D. Hayworth. And Russell Pearce, the author of SB 1070.
Larry| 4.26.12 @ 7:16PM
I like her courage and spunk. I'd take Brewer over the "list" VP candidates. Partly because I want Rubio, Toomey, and Ryan to stay in Congress where I think they can do the most good.
Another good candidate: Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Responsible, fiscally conservative, and courageous in his own right.
Nick| 4.26.12 @ 4:28PM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill the Bigot, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!
Nixonfan| 4.26.12 @ 1:52PM
It would appear that, according to the United States, anything that is illegal under federal law is therefore within the federal sphere, and not subject to state law. Narcotics?
ONTIME| 4.26.12 @ 2:08PM
Mayor is in denial, she knows the AZ version of this law is written to a copy of the US law, by denying the Az law the US law is also not a strong law but the concern is, should states be allowed to make and use law modeled after existing fed law....The answer is yes, in this case the point is the Feds will not live up to their obligation of enforcement, so the stae will fill in and encourage the Fed to do their job and if they still fail, then sue the fed for non compliance and cost to the state.
Verrelli is again defending the indefensible, wasting time and tax monies in a attempt to undermine immigration and enforcement of a legal precedent...This administration is full of phony legal obstruction.
Ross Kaminsky | 4.26.12 @ 2:10PM
For anybody who listens to the Jerry Doyle show, I'll be a guest today (Thursday) at 3:30 PM Eastern to talk about this article.
kwan| 4.26.12 @ 2:40PM
That's right the left's agenda is anti-logical and can only be defended with non-logic. Perhaps Verrilli's arguments would make more sense to the justices if they were to ingest some type of hallucinogen like LSD before the Solicitor General began his arguments. The fact is the left wishes to flood the country with illegal aliens which they will use to overwhelm our welfare system (Cloward-Piven strategy) and to illegally vote in our elections.
ABNCP| 4.26.12 @ 3:39PM
Prresident Obama and his admistration is so far behind the power curve on this subject as they are on so many others, they must be tone deaf. The overwhelming majority of Americans want secure borders and it is obvious Obama only wants fraud votes from illegal immigrants. On the Arizona law SB1070, yes, illegal immigration is a huge problem. Yes, the drug caravans are still coming across our borders. Yes, too many Hispanics let their ethnicity overcome their common sense where illegal immigration is concerned.
Now, let's discuss what the real danger in having borders we can't control is.
Prior to 9/11 no terrorist group had killed more Americans than Hezbollah. Like it's patron Iran, Hezbollah is committted to Americas destruction.
Iran's Latin hub. Venezuela is Iran's main hub in Latin America. Hezbollah has establilshed a major operating center on Margarita Island off Venezuela's coast with the full permission of Hugo Chavez. In just the past 6 years Iran and Venezuela have conducted over 40 billion dollars in trade. Chavez has embraced Iran and Hezbollah with open arms.
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials believe Hezbollah is sharing terrorist information with Mexican drug cartels along America's southern border. Mexican authorities have arrested Hezbollah operatives for attempting to establish a large network in Mexico.
U.S. authorities have stated, "There is a strong connection between Iran/Hezbollah and the Mexican drug cartels wanting to maximize the fact that we've got a porous southern border". U. S. authorities have stated, "We've got narco/drug cartel tunnels underneath our southern border that resemble what you find in southern Lebanon that have been designed and built by Hezbollah." The drug cartels will take anyone across our southern border with the money to pay them for the trip. Believe it, Hezbollah has plenty of money.
Ok, let's stop and think WTF is going on here? The border patrol has stated the've noticed more and more OTM's (other than Mexicans) coming across our southern border. Now what do you think they are coming here for? Could it just be that they might be sleeper cells sent by Hezbollah to cause as much destruction as possible in this country if and when we finally take action ion Iran's nukes?
The next question is why do so many Americans know next to nothing about this potentially catastrophic danger? Usual answer, the Obama controled media will not address it. Why does the Obama administration not take the required action to protect our souther borders instead of suing states who understand the reality of what is going on? When we finally have to take action on Iran, Obama will have the blood of many Americans on his head because of his politically outrageous decisions. But then what do we expect from a President who was put in office with an agenda to do as much harm to this country as possible.
Walt Tune| 4.26.12 @ 4:11PM
Using the government's stand that States have no control over their borders is arguing that California has no power to confiscate/quarantine fruits and vegetables crossing their border. Since this has been in force since I was a boy and before, apparently they do have such power. If a state can protect its farm industry, surely it can protect its other industries from illegal importation of labor.
crazy| 4.26.12 @ 4:35PM
Sounds like a good day for AZ but if there are continued disputes with the Feds over checking immigration papers maybe states ought to check employability instead with E-verify. If they flunk E-verify then drop them off at the front gate of the nearest federal installation. A base on the southern border like MCAS Yuma would be even better.
Ron| 4.26.12 @ 5:10PM
Ross,
Well written as always...I do not always agree with your views, but that is the wonder of these United States, our ability as rational adults to agree to disagree to anything...
I find it interesting that Kagan recused herself on this item, but not on NerObamacare...Any theory? I mean did a level of ethics suddenly spring to life in this dedicated Liberal-Socialist-Democrat (LSD..a joke there) or did she think this would be less of a hard sell than NerObamacare?
Robert| 4.26.12 @ 6:27PM
Kagan simply couldn't stomach committing the fraud of including herself on yet another miscarriage of justice in which she was a seminal participant, as she is once more here.
She didn't have the guts to show up for yet another conflict of interest and also could not figure out a way to be both a Supreme Court justice and an advocate for Obama's administration one more time.
Larry| 4.26.12 @ 7:19PM
The extent of Kagan's involvement in the Arizona case while she was still Solicitor General is far more extensive than it was in the Obamacare case; so even she couldn't credibly avoid recusing herself here. Even though I think she SHOULD have recused herself in the Obamacare case.
Owen K| 4.26.12 @ 6:56PM
Well said. They may indeed rue the day. I think that there are a lot of things they are going to rue after November.
Richard Baker| 4.26.12 @ 8:51PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but the arguments by the Solicitor General sound as if the States aren't even relevant and the Federal government is the final arbiter of all things. The federal government is a creature of the States and not the other way around.
Shiori| 4.27.12 @ 3:29AM
Left wing talking points apparently serve as sound legal argumentation to the Obama administration. Their arguments seem to be little more than a long string of 'yeah, buts' - so to speak. Looking over judicial history, it's chilling to see how often this very type of convoluted, circular logic has worked on the highest court in the land. What's more chilling is hearing from their own mouths their almost religious belief in an autocratic federal government. Are State borders mere aesthetics to them? Decorative edging? They decry States' sovereignty as the product of a secessionist fringe mindset and laughably praise themselves as defenders of the Union, but they conveniently forget that Lincoln didn't dissolve the States in order to preserve the Union. They conveniently forget everything they find inconvenient it seems. It is they who would dissolve these United States - it is the Democrats then and still.
AMAWALK| 4.27.12 @ 10:46AM
Say what you will, the Virrilli does a great impression of John Gibbons, the incompetent defense attorney played by Austin Pendleton in the movie, "My Cousin Vinny"
POST American| 4.28.12 @ 3:31AM
---Great piece!
NOW, leaving the '90's Show' aside
and tuning back in to 2012
IS everyone catching those latest
breaking reports of RUSSIAN troops
in joint exercises with Americans in
Colorado training to 'take on American
terrorists'?
ALL that's needed now are a contingent
of RED Chinese from that NOW on the go
50 square miles of RED China sovereign
territory that's been handed over south
of Boise------with O.J. leading the hunt
for the 'REAL' terrorists.
Afterall, this IS the 11th hour of the
four decades on CFR---RED China
handover, takedown, TREASON,
OCCUPATION and FINAL EUGENICS OP.
IT REALLY IS . . .
Better get on the go yourselves kiddies!
Remember, ETERNITY too is getting
MORE REAL by the second ---and that
process ---IS FOREVER. . .
"Let's ALL DIE -----or LET's DO IT."
-Thomas Carlysle
-----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012--------------
LET'S
danshanteal| 4.28.12 @ 1:54PM
READ THE TRANSCRIPT. MAKES OUR GOVT OUT TO BE INEPT. THE HEALTHCARE AND IMMIGRATION ISSUE WILL GO AGAINST OBAMA AND HOLDER. NOW ON TO THE CONTEMPT CITATION FOR FAST AND FURIOUS.
TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 4.28.12 @ 11:05PM
It is obvious, even to the liberal SC Justices, that this rogue Administration and their arguments are so absurd, it's laughable to a sane competent thinking person, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, whose job it is to adjudicate cases based on the US Constitution, and not by irrational illogical ideological idiocy.
Speedypete| 4.29.12 @ 9:04PM
Isn't this the solictor general that just a few weeks earlier told the U.S. Supreme Court that before health care corruption 80% of the people in the United States already had health care coverage? To a stunned and silent court. Except maybe one former solictor general that wrote it.