Discuss Immigration Issues with a Mexican American. Truth, Honesty and the American Way!
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Republicans at Fox have Amnesia! They Don't Remember 9/11 AND the Debt Crisis Happened Under Repub Bush's Watch!
Fox's Beck replacement Eric Bolling (a pompous JERK in his own right) just made an absolute FOOL of himself. In this clip, he DENIES 9/11 happened on Bush's watch (go to minute 1:31). "I don't remember ANY terrorist attacks under Bush's watch." What an IDIOT! He ALSO doesn't REMEMBER that Bush put us in this Economic Mess to begin with! That is the Biggest Problem with ALL Republicans! They FORGET HISTORY!!!
1st time ,Obama 787 billion dollars stimulus package for the middle class fell short of bringing us out of the recession, shame on the Democrats. 2nd time The Bush era stimulus package of 1.3 trillion dollars to Americas elite, now estimated to be more like in the vicinity of 4 trillion dollars, shame on the Republicans.
Ninety eight percent of us will keep paying our taxes, while the other two percent laugh all the way to the bank, shame on us.
This Suprme Court Term’s decision striking down Arizona’s public financing scheme may help efforts to shelve S.B. 1070. The scheme helped blunt the influence of campaign contributions from businesses. Business interests have been an important brake on anti-immigrant measures in other states. With public finance off the table for the moment, state legislators may be more amenable to business influence, which in this case cuts in a progressive direction.
Law Professor Peter Spiro suspect that the Court will punt on the case ( SB 1070 ). -
ScotusBlog - Why the Court will duck S.B. 1070 case (for now) - By Peter Spiro Peter Spiro, Temple University Law professor, discusses S.B. 1070 for our on-line symposium. Professor Spiro teaches immigration and international law at Temple University. He is the author of Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization (Oxford) Tuesday, July 12th, 2011
The petition is before the Court from an interlocutory appeal. That means declining review at this point won’t foreclose it at a later date. In the meantime, however, the Court might just hope that the case goes away. ...................
On the assumption that S.B. 1070 isn’t going away, I still think the Court will keep its distance from the Arizona case at this time. There is the background principle of percolation, first of all. There may be other similar state measures that make it through the legislative gates, which would generate an array of perspectives from the lower courts. Just in the recent days, there have been relevant decisions from federal district courts in Georgia and Indiana on state immigration measures. Another law out of Alabama – in some respects harsher than Arizona’s – is sure to provoke legal challenges.
As a general matter, the Court doesn’t like to engage an issue before it has to. Immigration enforcement is a political hot potato that doesn’t by itself fit into any pressing judicial agendas. Obviously, there are no splits on the question at this time, though some may develop. Assuming that other states persist in enacting their own restrictionist agendas, finally, waiting will also give the Court a better idea of the different possible approaches on the part of the states, which will make them easier to sort. Arizona’s approach may seem more or less reasonable against an array of other state measures. Finally, on the cert. question, it’s also no small matter that the Court is just coming off of Whiting, its first decision in more than thirty years to touch on the relationship of federalism and immigration enforcement. The Court’s decision in that case will affect lower court approaches to immigration federalism. Better to let Whiting to play out among the lower courts before revisiting the issue. So I don’t think it a foregone conclusion that the Court will grant Arizona’s petition. .
1st time ,Obama 787 billion dollars stimulus package for the middle class fell short of bringing us out of the recession, shame on the Democrats. 2nd time The Bush era stimulus package of 1.3 trillion dollars to Americas elite, now estimated to be more like in the vicinity of 4 trillion dollars, shame on the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteNinety eight percent of us will keep paying our taxes, while the other two percent laugh all the way to the bank, shame on us.
This Suprme Court Term’s decision striking down Arizona’s public financing scheme may help efforts to shelve S.B. 1070. The scheme helped blunt the influence of campaign contributions from businesses. Business interests have been an important brake on anti-immigrant measures in other states. With public finance off the table for the moment, state legislators may be more amenable to business influence, which in this case cuts in a progressive direction.
ReplyDeleteLaw Professor Peter Spiro suspect that the Court will punt on the case ( SB 1070 ). -
ScotusBlog -
Why the Court will duck S.B. 1070 case (for now) -
By Peter Spiro
Peter Spiro, Temple University Law professor, discusses S.B. 1070 for our on-line symposium.
Professor Spiro teaches immigration and international law at Temple University. He is the author of Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization (Oxford)
Tuesday, July 12th, 2011
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/07/why-the-court-will-duck-s-b-1070-case-for-now/
Some excerpts :
The petition is before the Court from an interlocutory appeal. That means declining review at this point won’t foreclose it at a later date. In the meantime, however, the Court might just hope that the case goes away.
...................
On the assumption that S.B. 1070 isn’t going away, I still think the Court will keep its distance from the Arizona case at this time. There is the background principle of percolation, first of all. There may be other similar state measures that make it through the legislative gates, which would generate an array of perspectives from the lower courts. Just in the recent days, there have been relevant decisions from federal district courts in Georgia and Indiana on state immigration measures. Another law out of Alabama – in some respects harsher than Arizona’s – is sure to provoke legal challenges.
As a general matter, the Court doesn’t like to engage an issue before it has to. Immigration enforcement is a political hot potato that doesn’t by itself fit into any pressing judicial agendas. Obviously, there are no splits on the question at this time, though some may develop. Assuming that other states persist in enacting their own restrictionist agendas, finally, waiting will also give the Court a better idea of the different possible approaches on the part of the states, which will make them easier to sort. Arizona’s approach may seem more or less reasonable against an array of other state measures. Finally, on the cert. question, it’s also no small matter that the Court is just coming off of Whiting, its first decision in more than thirty years to touch on the relationship of federalism and immigration enforcement. The Court’s decision in that case will affect lower court approaches to immigration federalism. Better to let Whiting to play out among the lower courts before revisiting the issue. So I don’t think it a foregone conclusion that the Court will grant Arizona’s petition.
.