Predator Masters using UBB.threads ™ Infopop Corporation.
PM Gear Moon & Weather

Welcome to the Predator Masters Forums
Be sure to visit the main Predator Master website at





PM Gear
PM Gear
PM Gear
The Official Predator Masters Search Engine
Search Predator Masters

Topic Options
#2206362 - 04/24/12 12:35 PM Just in case, Senate Plots Supreme Court End Around
hm1996 Offline
PM Junkie

Registered: 07/23/06
Posts: 16000
Loc: S. Texas
The domorats wouldn't be able to govern at all if it were not for "under the radar" and/or "end runs" around the Constitution, Congress and/or the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted By: Schumer
Immigration has not and never has been an area where states are able to exercise independent authority, Schumer said.


I ask the good Senator, do you suppose that this was because the states never had to exercise authority to enforce immigration laws back when the federal government was functional and did it's job?



Quote:

Senate Dems pushing bill to block Arizona immigration law if Supreme Court upholds it

Published April 24, 2012
FoxNews.com


Senate Democrats are pushing new legislation aimed at nullifying Arizona's controversial immigration law -- just in case the Supreme Court, which hears the case Wednesday, upholds the policy.

The proposal, announced Tuesday by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., would stand virtually no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled House. But it marks the latest preemptive challenge by Democrats to a high-stakes Supreme Court decision.

The immigration case arrives at the high court Wednesday just weeks after the justices heard arguments in the multi-state challenge to the federal health care overhaul. Though the justices are not expected to rule in that case until summer, President Obama had cautioned the "unelected" judges against overturning his landmark domestic policy accomplishment -- claiming such a move would be "unprecedented."

Schumer's fallback option on the Arizona immigration case holds a similar message. If the high court upholds the law, the congressional proposal would be a direct rebuke to that decision.


"Immigration has not and never has been an area where states are able to exercise independent authority," Schumer said Tuesday at a Capitol Hill hearing, where he announced he would introduce the proposal should the Supreme Court "ignore" the "plain and unambiguous statements of congressional intent" and uphold the Arizona law.

He said the proposal would only allow states to arrest illegal immigrants if they are operating under an "explicit agreement" with Washington and are being supervised by federal officials. Plus he said the proposal would preempt state governments from enacting their own employment verification laws.

"States like Arizona and Alabama will no longer be able to get away with saying they're simply helping the federal government ... to enforce the law when they are really writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained officers with the mission of arresting anyone and everyone who might fit the preconceived profile of an illegal immigrant."

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., objected to the hearing Tuesday and suggested Democrats were trying to influence the court.

"I will not participate in today's hearing because it is strictly political theater. The timing of the hearing just one day ahead of the Supreme Court's review of the law suggests that its purpose is either to influence the court's decision or to garner publicity," he said in a statement. "The Supreme Court will decide the case on its merits and that is how it should be."

The Supreme Court case on Wednesday will have national implications, though Arizona is the only state directly involved. Several other states, including Georgia and Alabama, have followed Arizona's lead in implementing their own individually tailored immigration laws.

The Obama administration challenged Arizona on the grounds that its immigration law was a flagrant state overreach.

"Congress vested the Executive Branch with the authority and the discretion to make sensitive judgments with respect to aliens," Solicitor General Don Verrilli argued in the government's brief.

"The decision to admit, detain or remove a particular alien depends not only on resource constraints, but on numerous other considerations that call for a decisionmaker to exercise sound judgment on behalf of the nation as a whole, according to a single standard."

Verrilli argued that Arizona tried to "interpose its own judgments on those sensitive standards."

"For each state, and each locality, to set its own immigration policy in that fashion would wholly subvert Congress' goal: a single, national approach."

But Arizona argued that the current system is broken, and that the state is paying an unfair price for that failure.

"Arizona shoulders a disproportionate burden of the national problem of illegal immigration," attorney Paul Clement argued in his brief. He argued that enforcement attention in California and Texas has turned the Arizona border into a funnel for illegal immigrants, with a third of illegal border crossings occurring there.

"This flood of unlawful cross-border traffic and the accompanying influx of illegal drugs, dangerous criminals and highly vulnerable persons have resulted in massive problems for Arizona's citizens and government," Clement said.

The attorney described Arizona's law as a response to an "emergency situation" -- with illegal immigrants soaking up millions of state dollars in health care and education, posing safety risks to ranchers and cutting into the state's job market.

Two of the key statutes, which have been blocked and will be at issue in Wednesday's arguments, are provisions to bar illegal immigrations from seeking a job and to require law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally in the course of a routine stop.

A ruling from the Supreme Court is likely to come this summer, in the thick of the presidential election year -- it could either bolster what has been a bold move from the Obama administration's Justice Department to intervene in state issues ranging from immigration to voter ID laws, or stop the administration in its tracks and open the floodgates to even more state laws that challenge federal authority.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/.../#ixzz1syS5MStp


Regards,
hm
_________________________
If what's ahead scares you and what's behind hurts you, look up; He never fails you.

If My people will humble themselves, pray, seek My face & turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven & will forgive their sin & heal their land.




Top
#2206386 - 04/24/12 01:09 PM Re: Just in case, Senate Plots Supreme Court End Around [Re: hm1996]
azmastablasta Offline
PM Junkie

Registered: 12/13/07
Posts: 14187
Loc: Arizona
Great post Hm, I see what you did there with that top water bait(domorat). This time of year I too love to toss a top water lure out into that quiet spot by the log and lightly twitch it a few times. They can't resist it, lol.

And excellent questions for Chas. (chuck you) Schumer.
Wouldn't you just love to have a few minutes alone in a room with him and no witnesses?
_________________________
NRA LIFEMEMBER


Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.

You can lead a man to knowledge but you can't make him think.

Wise men argue causes; fools decide them. Anacharsis

Top
#2206761 - 04/24/12 10:48 PM Re: Just in case, Senate Plots Supreme Court End Around [Re: azmastablasta]
Rocky1 Offline
PM Junkie

Registered: 11/24/10
Posts: 11518
Loc: ND/FL - USA
Hmmmmm... Isn't crossing the border illegally a Felony?

If not, crossing the US border would at minimum be a misdemeanor, however crossing a state line in commission of a crime does I believe make it a felony.

Regardless there are 13 million illegal aliens in the country. What the Senate Democrats are suggesting would in fact be aiding and abetting a known criminal in commission of a crime, making them an accessory to the crime. It would also be construed as harboring a fugitive.

Why the [beeep] hasn't anyone filed charges and had them arrested?
_________________________
Think about how stupid the average person is, then stop and realize... Half of them are stupider than that! -- George Carlin

Top
#2206770 - 04/24/12 11:00 PM Re: Just in case, Senate Plots Supreme Court End Around [Re: Rocky1]
Stu Farish Offline
Moderator/Webmaster

Registered: 04/22/01
Posts: 23616
Loc: Have gun, will travel
I don't see the DOJ suing sanctuary cities, nor states that provide free tuition or other assistance to illegals.

Their outrage seems to be quite selective.
_________________________
If a fire fighter fights fires, then what does a freedom fighter fight?

Keep calm and crazy on


Top
#2206818 - 04/25/12 12:34 AM Re: Just in case, Senate Plots Supreme Court End Around [Re: Rocky1]
hm1996 Offline
PM Junkie

Registered: 07/23/06
Posts: 16000
Loc: S. Texas
Originally Posted By: Rocky1
Hmmmmm... Isn't crossing the border illegally a Felony?


Guess not so much any more:



Regards,
hm
_________________________
If what's ahead scares you and what's behind hurts you, look up; He never fails you.

If My people will humble themselves, pray, seek My face & turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven & will forgive their sin & heal their land.




Top
#2207158 - 04/25/12 06:37 PM Re: Just in case, Senate Plots Supreme Court End Around [Re: hm1996]
jumprightinit Offline
PM senior

Registered: 12/29/07
Posts: 7007
Loc: Ione, Washistan
I would think it a compliment to the Supreme Court if the House destroys that bill. Every one already knows where the Socialists in the Senate stand on the law.
_________________________
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.


LIBERALS.
Be careful. Sometimes they look like regular people.



No matter how you look at it at the end of the day BO still stinks.


Top
#2207199 - 04/25/12 07:32 PM Re: Just in case, Senate Plots Supreme Court End Around [Re: jumprightinit]
Rocky1 Offline
PM Junkie

Registered: 11/24/10
Posts: 11518
Loc: ND/FL - USA
Quote:
Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision

The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it might uphold a key element of Arizona's immigration law, as justices across the board suggested the state has a serious problem on its hands and should have some level of sovereignty to address illegal immigration.

The justices appeared ready to allow a provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the U.S. illegally.

The justices strongly suggested Wednesday they are not buying the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority, with Chief Justice John Roberts at one point saying he doesn't think the federal government even wants to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country.

"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

Just like the health care overhaul challenge heard earlier this month, Wednesday's hearing on the immigration law drew passionate surrogates from both sides. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was loudly booed by the law's opponents in front of the courthouse. She said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that "I am filled with optimism -- the kind that comes with knowing that Arizona's cause is just and its course is true."

While the justices addressed the traffic stop provision Wednesday, it was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft the law, voiced optimism in Arizona's chances.

"This was a very good day for Arizona in the Supreme Court today," he told Fox News. "The U.S. Justice Department was on the ropes."

But Brent Wilkes, director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, warned that the law would take a "human toll" on Arizona families if allowed to stand.

"This is really a racial profiling bill," he told Fox News.

The hearing Wednesday morning has implications far beyond Arizona's borders, as several states, including Alabama and South Carolina, have followed in Arizona's footsteps to craft their own immigration enforcement measures.

The Obama administration, which opposes those measures, has argued that the country cannot sustain a patchwork of separate immigration laws.

Verrilli, who is arguing on behalf of the government, said in his brief that the Executive Branch has the power to enforce immigration policy.

"For each state, and each locality, to set its own immigration policy in that fashion would wholly subvert Congress' goal: a single, national approach," he wrote.

But Arizona argued that the current system is broken, and that the state is paying an unfair price for that failure.

"Arizona shoulders a disproportionate burden of the national problem of illegal immigration," attorney Paul Clement argued in his brief. He argued that enforcement attention in California and Texas has turned the Arizona border into a funnel for illegal immigrants, with a third of illegal border crossings occurring there.

The attorney described Arizona's law as a response to an "emergency situation" -- with illegal immigrants soaking up millions of state dollars in health care and education, posing safety risks to ranchers and cutting into the state's job market.

Two of the key statutes, which have been blocked and will be at issue in Wednesday's arguments, are provisions to bar illegal immigrants from seeking a job and to require law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally in the course of a routine stop.

A ruling from the Supreme Court is likely to come this summer, in the thick of the presidential election year -- it could either bolster what has been a bold move from the Obama administration's Justice Department to intervene in state issues ranging from immigration to voter ID laws, or stop the administration in its tracks and open the floodgates to even more state laws that challenge federal authority.

The immigration case arrives at the high court Wednesday just weeks after the justices heard arguments in the multi-state challenge to the federal health care overhaul.

Democrats on Capitol Hill this week were already scrambling to prepare for the possibility that the high court upholds the immigration law. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced a plan to introduce a bill that would effectively nullify Arizona's law -- though it would stand virtually no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled House.

"Immigration has not and never has been an area where states are able to exercise independent authority," Schumer said Tuesday at a Capitol Hill hearing, where he announced he would introduce the proposal should the Supreme Court "ignore" the "plain and unambiguous statements of congressional intent" and uphold the Arizona law.

But former Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the law, said: "We have a national crisis, and yet everyone wants to ignore that: the cost, the damage, the crime."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/...k#ixzz1t68vjOT3
_________________________
Think about how stupid the average person is, then stop and realize... Half of them are stupider than that! -- George Carlin

Top



Moderator:  Infidel 762, Stu Farish 

© Predator Masters™, All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.