And to think that liberals accused President Bush of dividing the country. The war in Iraq did cause much friction within the country, but nowhere to the level that this White House has done.
With all the progress this nation has made in the issue of race since the turbulent 60s, Obama and company have taken us back decades in racial relations, and it's all intentional, I might add. Anything to get the voters' minds distracted from the abysmal job Obama has done in handling our economic troubles.
Throw in the issue of illegal immigration, the new Arizona law, and Obama's lawsuit to stop the governor of Arizona from enforcing the law, which in reality, is his job to do, though he will not do so, and he's just caused more turmoil.
When it's all said and done, Obama is not doing himself any favors on this one. A huge majority of Americans want the Arizona law enforced in its entirety. He may have won round one, thanks to the ruling by an activist Clinton-appointed judge. But, now this case will be appealed and dragged through the legal system until it goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
Time is not on his side; Americans will grow even more enraged by his pandering to Hispanics, while Arizonans and other border state citizens are left to deal with an influx of dangerous illegals.
Read from Dick Morris:
IMMIGRATION DECISION WILL ERODE OBAMA SUPPORT
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
"When Judge Susan Bolton granted an injunction halting the enforcement of key provisions of the Arizona immigration enforcement law, she ruled in favor of the Justice Department’s position, but against the president’s political interest.
Had the judge sustained this law, it would have made moot Obama’s opposition to the Arizona law. As it is, she has transformed the law into a big campaign issue against Obama. Now the president is standing in the way of a state that wants to enforce the law that he won’t.
The Arizona law is massively popular in the United States. Over 60 percent of all American voters support it. But the president has sought and has succeeded in stopping it from taking effect. Now this majority — close to two-thirds of the electorate — that backs the law will be able to focus their blame for its non-enforcement squarely on the president of the United States.
In the long term, the Bolton decision will likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court and Arizona will find itself vindicated. But, in the meantime, the decision endangers the re-election chances of three Democratic Congressmen from Arizona. Their constituents will not be satisfied with statements from these Democrats supporting the Arizona law. They will become embittered because Obama’s Justice Department has overridden their will.
Why did Obama bring the suit in the first place if it hurts him? Because he was seeking to increase the turnout of Latino voters and trying to win them by the same huge margin (2:1) that they delivered to him in 2008. Since he took office, Obama’s approval among Hispanics has dropped to 54%, foreshadowing a massive abandonment of his Congressional candidates in November.
But what Obama miscalculated was the intense support from among most voters that the Arizona law has elicited. As he bid for Latino votes, he has sacrificed much of his liberal, Democratic base.
This decision hurts him badly."
There is some truth to the following statement: "he has sacrificed much of his liberal, Democratic base". I nearly fell over in shock when my ultra-liberal father shared with me that he was disappointed in Obama and that he started out as a conservative, became a liberal, and now doesn't know what he is. Why the sudden change? It was primarily about illegal immigration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
President Barack Obama didn't bring this lawsuit. Attorney General Eric Holder did so.
Does the result help Obama politically? Probably not.
So why was the lawsuiit filed?
BECAUSE IT'S THE CONSTITUTION.
It's not a toy to be tested, twisted or ignored, the way Dick Cheney did. It's the cornerstone of our republic and it deserves respect.
What's amazing is how many rightwingnut so-called "constitutionalists" are perfectly willing to throw the Constitution in the trash can whenever it suits their purposes.
Immigration law is clearly a federal issue, not a state issue. Whether or not a state approves or disapproves of the feds' handling of the law, it's still federal jurisdiction. States cannot legally interfere any more than a common vigilante has a right to exact his own brand of justice.
I know, it's inconvenient as hell when you don't like a law and it's enforced, or when you do like a law and it'snot enforced. But that's our system... and it's the best system out there.
If you disagree, find a country with a better legal system, and consider moving there.
Wise up! Holder doesn't do anything without the full approval of Obama.
That's rich, you, all of a sudden, pretending to be a great supporter of the Constitution. You libs are trying to steal free speech and gun rights from average Americans. Read the Bill of Rights lately? You people have NOTHING but disdain for the Constitution.
BTW, the law is Constitutional, and the recent ruling will most likely be overturned when it gets past the liberal 9th circuit court and reaches the Supreme Court.
You MAY think that the Attorney General doesn't act without the approval of the President -- since your only frame of reference is the Bush model... when AGs like John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez were Bushie's lapdogs. But check out the AGs for Nixon AFTER John Mitchell resigned; they'll show you what real AGs do.
I've studied the Constitution in college and law school, Missy, and I've taught the Constitution in U.S. History classesm as well as teaching several years of an elective class called Constitutional and Criminal Law. What are your credentials? Did your Religious Rightwingnut homeskool textbooks tell you everything you needed to know about the Constitution, but were afraid to ask? On what basis do you claim that the AZ law is constitutional? Go ahead, opine. Let us hear your legal wisdom and knowledge! Explain to us how you can so cavalierly dismiss the ruling of a sitting U.S. District Court judge who listened to days of testimony and argument on the issues. What did you do, tune into Glenn Dreck for ten minutes on Faux Noise and hear enough to feel "informed"? Not only are you ignorant on such topics, Ms. MoreLies, but you seem to REVEL in your ignorance. Again, you're free to do whatever you want with your miserable little life, but I do have concerns for your kids. They really shouldn't have to suffer for the sins of their mother.
As for the First and Second Amendments, I support them, but I don't think they're limitless. I don't personally think that the First Amendment free speech rights apply to campaign contributions, as does a 5-4 majority of the current Supreme Court. Money is not speech. But it IS the law.. for now. As for the Second Amendment, again, this 5-4 majority on the current Court says it's an individual right that is virtually limitless. If you READ the Amendment, it brings into question the correctness of their ruling. But, again, it IS the law... for now.
Just like Roe v. Wade. Except that case has stuck around for almost 40 years wuthout any signs of disappearing. We'll see if the current COurt is so fortunate and on the ball.
Just another leftwingloon Klinton appointed hack that rules against The America People.
Yeah, that's it, AnonyMouse.
Judges aren't supposed to rule for or against "The American People". Judges are supposed to use the Constitution at their North Star... not the latest Rasmussen poll.
She did her job... better than at least 4 of the present Supreme Court justices.
Diogenes, let's get one thing straight. You care nothing about my kids, so spare me the false concern. You just use them to attack me. Is that a Saul Alinsky tactic?
You and Obama both may be experts on the Constitution, but neither one of you show much respect for it. Your left-wing ideology always comes first.
It is the job of our federal govt to protect its citizens, and in the case of Arizona, the feds have failed miserably.
Article IV, Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
The Arizona bill does not interfere with or replace federal law; it is consistent with it. It just assists the feds in carrying out the law that is already on the books. The judge is confusing law with enforcement.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38303
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjMyZmVkMmUzYWIxYTAzY2QxOTA0ZDg5OWQyYzg1MzQ=
If the law were un-Constitutional, then many would not feel so confident that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Arizona.
Believe it or not, Ms. MoreLies, I do care about your kids. I'm concerned about any kids that get a lousy education.
The Arizona law goes beyond what the federal laws say, which is why the judge granted the TRO.
There's only one reason why pundits think there's a decent chance of a reversal by the Supreme Court. Actually, that's not true, there are four GREAT reasons (namely, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas). Those four conservative idealogues have shown that they're all too willing to make decisions based upon their personal political views instead of solid Constitutional underpinnings. And, if they can convince Justice Kennedy to join them (which they've been able to do far too often and far too easily) then the Constitution gets ignored (again) and the AZ law stands.
LMAO Mark Levin and Andy McCarthy are your "sources"??????
What, were BOTH Ted Nugent and Chuck Norris unavailable for comment?
Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are the activist judges? What a hoot! They are the ones following the Constitution. It's those leftist judges who are trying to steal guns from average Americans.
Those four (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) plus Kennedy, established an individual right to guns that was never iterated in over 200 years under the Constitution. That is, arguably, activist.
But far worse was the 2000 decision to cede the presidential election to Georgie Porgie. (Can't blame Roberts and Kennedy for that one, though Rehnquist was still Chief and O'Connor voted the Republican line instead of Kennedy.)
Both sides -- left and right -- resort to activism when they need to. But the AZ judge wasn't being an activist in this case.
Speaking of judges, you still haven't responded to (ex) Judge Andrew Napolitano -- Faux Noise's talking head -- opining that Bush and Cheney should have been indicted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TosF6Ope53E
I have mixed feelings on this issue. What they did was done at a time of war for our nation's security. If you recall, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson jailed 2,000+ citizens for speaking out against his govt, and good ole FDR had internment camps. Should they have been indicted?
You libs are intent on going after Bush and Cheney, but excuse Obama's actions. Is that fair? Do you support Obama's assassination program for suspected terrorists in this country?
The way I see it, at least Bush recognized who the true enemy was, whereas Obama makes excuses for Muslim terrorists and portrays freedom loving Americans as his enemy. That is truly scary!
"Do you support Obama's assassination program for suspected terrorists in this country?"
See, that's one of your biggest weaknesses. The first I heard of even the possibility of there being such a program was in that post you made earlier this week. And, if one reads it closely (or as closely as one can read, since it was written by Chuck Norris!) you see how rightwingnut bloggers twist things.
There are unconfirmed reports about assassination programs (nothing new, and probably a necessary evil). Then there are unconfirmed reports that the unconfirmed programs may be targeting American citizens abroad. And then Norris went straight into speculation, suggesting that, if Obama was murdering Americans overseas, why wouldn't he murder them here, too? So the ultimate take-away becomes Obama is murdering American citizens on American soil, with no oversight or accountability whatsoever.
Now, COULD that be happening? Sure. IS it happening? We're not any closer to knowing after reading Norris' nonsense than before reading it.
Now, what Bush and Cheney (more Cheney than Bush, I'd be willing to bet) did was different. They stretched the Constitutional restrictions a bit... which I could live with, in a time of emergency. But what they did, which was really blameworthy, is that they went way beyond even those stretched guidelines. And then they lied about what they did and how they did it. This country (as do most) has always considered water-boarding to be torture. we did it, we did it REPEATEDLY, and then we lied about it. And, when it became clear that it was done, Cheney argued that not only was water-boarding not torture, but that only an unpatriotic moron would even dare suggest it was torture.
They could get approval of damn near any kind of wiretap they could have wanted, via FISA courts. But they got so lazy and/or so arrogant, they didn't even bother jumping through those minimal hoops. Cheney did whatever the hell he wanted to do, and dared anybody to challenge him. And when he id get challenged, he hired hack lawyers who wrote legal opinions supporting Cheney that were so bogus it wasn't worth the waste of paper.
No, sorry, Judge Napolitano was right on this one. Bush and Cheney have gotten away with it; nobody would bother going after them now. But the worst part is this: Bush/Cheney crossed the line so much, they damn near erased it. And, by getting away with it, they've made it so much easier for some other President, down the road, to use that as a starting point... to get to who knows where?
Check this out:
Congress passed law in 1996 that contradicts pre-emption argument
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/31/congress-passed-law-in-1996-that-contradicts-pre-emption-argument/
More mush created by rightwingnuts who don't understand the basics of the law.
There is a HUGE difference between the 1996 law and the current AZ controversy.
In 1996, according to what you posted, the feds allowed state and local authorities to enforce FEDERAL immigration laws.
What AZ attempted to do was create its OWN immigration law. Granted, parts of it mirrored federal law, but significant parts of the AZ law did NOT mirror federal law.
Who WRITES the laws and who ENFORCES the laws are two separate issues.
Post a Comment