Obama can’t stop talking about Arizona law that DOJ hasn’t reviewed yet

posted at 9:00 pm on April 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

Oh, there’s no doubt that the DOJ will challenge the law — the politics demands it, which is one reason why Holder expressed his concern today — but wouldn’t it be keen if the country’s chief law enforcement officer held off on prejudicing public opinion about it until the review is done? In theory (albeit not in political reality), Holder could come back and say that the law is constitutional, which would leave The One … where? Shrugging it off after all but pronouncing it a tool for racial profiling today?

In fact, I don’t think this is even factually correct:

The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

One of the open questions about the statute is whether it lets cops detain people solely because they’re suspected of being here illegally or whether some independent suspicion of criminal activity has to exist first, at which point the issue of illegal status can be raised. The lawyer who e-mailed me the other day thinks the “lawful contact” provision means that independent suspicion is required; Byron York reads the statute the same way. Assuming that reading is correct, then no, cops can’t pull you aside if you’re on your way to get ice cream with your kid just because they think you might be illegal. Or at least, they can’t do so lawfully: If they abuse their power then the state will pay, both literally and figuratively. And given the publicity this thing is getting, there’ll be no shortage of lawyers eager to make them do so.

I have no problem with lefties — or righties — noting the potential problems in the bill, but given the hysteria swirling around it and the size of Obama’s megaphone, a little bit of that “first-class temperament” we’ve heard so much about would have gone a long way here. Nothing fancy required; a simple “let me hold off on commenting until the Department of Justice weighs in” would have been dandy. But then, now that we’re in midterms mode, The One needs enemies to beat on. How nice that Arizona could help him out. Skip ahead to 4:40 for the relevant clip.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Give it a rest.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM

First they came for the Arizonians, then … … …

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Do you have a Black’s Law Dictionary? If not, go down to your local law library and look it up in theirs. And while you’re down there, check out Words and Phrases.

Well, Black’s isn’t controlling law in Arizona. Why don’t you check it out for yourself. Go check out Arizona statutes or research Arizona cases. I have Westlaw, but I’m sure it’s easy for you to find if you were interested.

Better yet, why don’t you speculate and just make up something instead? That’s what they do at National Review!

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:38 PM

First they came for the Arizonians, then … … …

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Yeah, terrific, invoke that poem about the Nazis, because Obama criticizing a state law is just like what Hitler did to the Jews.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:39 PM

bannedbyhuffpo on April 27, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Next time, you should consider telling us how you really feel.

/s

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Ok, will do. Like I said, I’m no expert on this immigration law. My posts have just reflected the consensus from my buddies who do know a lot about it how to not read a piece of legislation.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM

You still haven’t shown how Arizona’s law preempts Federal legislation.

uknowmorethanme on April 27, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Well, Black’s isn’t controlling law in Arizona. Why don’t you check it out for yourself. Go check out Arizona statutes or research Arizona cases. I have Westlaw, but I’m sure it’s easy for you to find if you were interested.

Better yet, why don’t you speculate and just make up something instead? That’s what they do at National Review!

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Black’s isn’t controlling law anywhere. By the way, researching Arizona statutes and cases is irrelevant to this thread. This is about federal officers (Jug Ears and AG Varmint Face) talking about a state law being in violation of the federal constitution.

Whether a state law violates a state constitution is simply beyond any jurisdiction of the United States.

You need to use that Westlaw a little more, son.

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 10:45 PM

I checked this as best I could, just in case, but I’m sure I’m correct.

“…but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”

Guess what, Mr. President. Taking your kids out to get an ice cream without a driver’s license (which is sufficient proof in any reasonable circumstances) would driving without a license, which must be on you at all times anyway. It’s a misdemeanor!

Jinxed on April 27, 2010 at 10:48 PM

You need to use that Westlaw a little more, son.

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 10:45 PM

And you need to use that thing in between your ears a little more, son. I don’t know/care about whether this violates the Arizona constitution. But whether it violates the federal Constitution depends a great deal on what a “Lawful contact” is, and if there’s no definition of it in the statute, you can look at earlier cases or statute to see if there is an already provided definition (like “reasonable suspicion”) or if it just means what it literally means.

Because, if the literal definition is the definition they’re using, the law isn’t constitutional.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Yeah, terrific, invoke that poem about the Nazis, because Obama criticizing a state law is just like what Hitler did to the Jews.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Yeah, terrific, go all bonkers about any critique of your Dear Leader Emperor Obama.

History seldom repeats but it often rhymes. If you think my, “First they came for the Arizonians ….” ist Verboten then you haven’t been paying attention to Lord Benito Obama and his minions rhetoric against so many Americans. Open you eyes once in awhile.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:49 PM

I’m enjoying how no one seems to know what a ‘lawful contact’ is. Who wrote this POS law?

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM

I know what lawful contact means, but then, I’m not a lawyer. I’m honest and use common sense and don’t try to twist things not caring who gets hurt as long as I win kind of guy.

Vince on April 27, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Yeah, terrific, go all bonkers about any critique of your Dear Leader Emperor Obama.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:49 PM

I know, right? Can you believe I criticized you when you compared Obama criticizing a law to Hitler? Boy, liberals are so touchy. They always get all huffy when you compare them to Hitler.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:52 PM

But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.

The new law is for keeping safe all the legal citizens of Arizona. Once Arizona cracks down on illegals, they’ll quit coming here or go through the proper procedure to enter the U.S.

TN Mom on April 27, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Because, if the literal definition is the definition they’re using, the law isn’t constitutional.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:49 PM

The law is likely constitutional but in case you haven’t noticed oh myopic one, your Dear Leader Emperor Hussein Obama ain’t too fond of the U.S. Constitution so his arguing that it is unconstitutional carries about as much weight as a warm bucket of spit. For him to even talk about what is constitutional is a joke, a farce.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:55 PM

I know what lawful contact means, but then, I’m not a lawyer. I’m honest and use common sense and don’t try to twist things not caring who gets hurt as long as I win kind of guy.

Vince on April 27, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Enlighten us, Vince.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:55 PM

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Oh, wow, good point. It’s a farce? Maybe they’ll argue that to SCOTUS – someone will be like, “Yeah, this argument by the other guy – it’s a farce. Obama think it’s unconstitutional, and that’s worth a warm bucket of spit, Obama hates the Constitution.” That’s going to work.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:49 PM
I know, right? Can you believe I criticized you when you compared Obama criticizing a law to Hitler? Boy, liberals are so touchy. They always get all huffy when you compare them to Hitler.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Don’t worry…when things go wrong, PR will just vote for obama again.

HornetSting on April 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM

I know, right? Can you believe I criticized you when you compared Obama criticizing a law to Hitler? Boy, liberals are so touchy. They always get all huffy when you compare them to Hitler.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Your reasoning is uncoordinated and you are going even more bonkers.

“First they came for the Arizonians, then … … …”

Talk about touchy. You see little that and go all huffy and all puffy.

You are a self-parody.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM
Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:30 PM
Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:49 PM

lawful contact lawful contact lawful contact lawful contact lawful contact lawful contact lawful contact

My lord you are like a coked up African Grey…

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Where’s Obama’s suit jacket and tie? He doesn’t look like the President. He looks like some rabble rousing, race baiting, community organizing street thug.

OxyCon on April 27, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Don’t worry…when things go wrong, PR will just vote for obama again.

HornetSting on April 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM

And he will do it in a touchy huffy snit.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Some day, you may learn the difference between ‘as applied’ and ‘facially invalid’. The operating distinction is whether there’s any limitation on the law at all. Lawful contact would appear, to most of us dumbasses, to be a limitation.

So if there is a way to follow the law within the constitution and a way to follow the law outside the constitution, the law is facially valid.

Sorry but that’s the truth. This is a made up tempest. It will fail. As a matter of fact, I’ll bet they will not find a federal judge in Arizona who will issue an injunction against this law BECAUSE it is not facially invalid. How do I know? Because it is a copy of federal law and that law has been tested through prior caselaw opinions.

As a final point, I would argue that it would be frivolous to even file a facial challenge to this law. Any attorney doing so should have to explain himself/herself to a Bar grievance committee. The charge? Stupidity, which is an ethical violation for an attorney.

(okay, I admit that last sentence was a joke)

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 11:01 PM

My lord you are like a coked up African Grey…

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 10:59 PM

*SNORT*

oops!

thomasaur on April 27, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Where’s Obama’s suit jacket and tie? He doesn’t look like the President. He looks like some rabble rousing, race baiting, community organizing street thug.

OxyCon on April 27, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Well, you know what they say about pigs and lipstick.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 11:02 PM

In case no one has posted this squib from Mark Krikorian at “The Corner,” which includes some links, Jeb Bush was for enforcement before he was against it.

Jeb Bush Was for Local Enforcement Before He Was Against It [Mark Krikorian]

A friend on the Hill reminds me that, despite his recent comment that immigration should be exclusively a federal issue, then-governor of Florida Jeb Bush signed the first-ever agreement with the federal government under the 287(g) program, which trains state and local police to enforce immigration law. But then, in 2002 he was up for re-election, so maybe his stance was just boob bait for bubba.

Also, Sharpton had mixed response to his promotion of a march on Arizona at his radio program. Apparently, many in his black audience object to the growing population of illegals because they are taking away jobs from potential black employees.

I see at Drudge that Janet Napolitano is sending drones to the border. What are they going to do? Target bombs at illegals? This administration goes from one absurdity to another.

Perhaps Holder should have advised the ObaMao administration re the injustice and unconstitutionality of the O-care legislation. Doesn’t this waste of an attorney have bigger fish to fry? Congress has subpoenaes him and the DoD to answer some pertinent questions re the Ft. Hood jihadist, subpoenas that are being ignored.

onlineanalyst on April 27, 2010 at 11:02 PM

He looks like some rabble rousing, race baiting, community organizing street thug.

OxyCon on April 27, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Looks can be deceiving but not in this instance.

thomasaur on April 27, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Sigmund on April 27, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I expect to be given a footnote reference in your book.

Americannodash on April 27, 2010 at 11:03 PM

Oh look Mommy! The bad man said our dear President is a pig wearing lipstick!
- Loud Rino

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 11:03 PM

He looks like some rabble rousing, race baiting, community organizing street thug.

OxyCon on April 27, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Looks can be deceiving but not in this instance.

thomasaur on April 27, 2010 at 11:03 PM

He may sound like a rabble rousing, race baiting, community organizing street thug but don’t let that fool you, he really is a rabble rousing, race baiting, community organizing street thug.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Enlighten us, Vince.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:55 PM

OK, SFB, when you are speeding down a street at 50 MPH and the limit is 20 MPH and a police officer stops you, he has made lawful contact. When you are stopped going 19MPH and everything is in visible working order with your vehicle and it’s a legal street vehicle then the officer did not make lawful contact.

Vince on April 27, 2010 at 11:07 PM

I’m enjoying how no one seems to know what a ‘lawful contact’ is. Who wrote this POS law?

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:11 PM

I would assume it’s more than a pompous law student. And I’ll bet you think ObamaCare is a legislative work of art.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM

Maybe we could just get a bunch of conservatives to speculate on what they *hope* it means, and then Arizona could argue that to SCOTUS.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:22 PM

We could take the moonbat tack and say it’s a “living, breathing document”.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:13 PM

I would assume it’s more than a pompous law student. And I’ll bet you think ObamaCare is a legislative work of art.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM

Anything that weakens our sovereignty, destroys our economy, weakens personal property rights, and otherwise infringes on individual liberty, you will find Proud RINO there defending it. Pretty much human excrement.

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 11:13 PM

Everyone here criticizing Emperor Obama must do penitence.

All say 25 Hail Obamas for Loud Rino.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 11:14 PM

OK, SFB, when you are speeding down a street at 50 MPH and the limit is 20 MPH and a police officer stops you, he has made lawful contact. When you are stopped going 19MPH and everything is in visible working order with your vehicle and it’s a legal street vehicle then the officer did not make lawful contact.

Vince on April 27, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Right, but if that’s the case, then the law is essentially redundant. You’re allow to get identification if you’re pulling someone over. That’s not the controversy.

But what if you want to say hi to someone on the street? What if you see someone in the parking lot near a crime scene and you ask them if they’ll answer a few questions? That’s all lawful contact too, if we’re using the common-sense definition of what “lawful contact” is.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:19 PM

In other words, it’s unconstitutional to enforce national immigration laws. That’s what it all boils down to.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Obama can’t stop talking lying about Arizona law that DOJ hasn’t reviewed yet

FIFY.

The liar in chief caught lying again. There is no threat of being harassed while taking your kids to get some ice cream while Hispanic. They’re probably 100 times more likely to be run down by a drunk illegal, or shot by illegals in a drug-inspired turf war while going to get some ice cream than being confronted by an agent of the state demanding their papers. But why stick to reality when make believe is so much more fun.

xblade on April 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM

What about liability? In the future crimes commited by illegals, wouldn’t it make state’s liability in not preventing them, especially if lawfull contacts were documented?

anikol on April 27, 2010 at 11:25 PM

law. I admittedly didn’t know too much about it before this whole issue came up, but one of my roommates clerked for an immigration court, so he brought me up to speed. He also emailed his buddy who works at the DOJ about it, and he said it’s likely preempted by federal law.

Also, I’ve read a few articles by law professors (including Chemerinsky) who’ve said it’s facially unconstitutional for the same reason. It’s a pretty straightforward issue.

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 9:50 PM

So you base your argument on a student and a janitor at DOJ?

katy the mean old lady on April 27, 2010 at 11:29 PM

So you base your argument on a student and a janitor at DOJ?
katy the mean old lady on April 27, 2010 at 11:29 PM

A DoJ litigator, a former immigration court clerk, and Chemerisnky (probably the preeminent Con Law scholar in the U.S.)

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 11:31 PM

In other words, it’s unconstitutional to enforce national immigration laws. That’s what it all boils down to.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:23 PM

No, just don’t write a badly written law. I’m actually not as convinced by the federalism argument, although I think that’s why it’ll lose in court.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM

But what if you want to say hi to someone on the street? What if you see someone in the parking lot near a crime scene and you ask them if they’ll answer a few questions? That’s all lawful contact too, if we’re using the common-sense definition of what “lawful contact” is.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:19 PM

You got it. It’s lawful contact and it’s constitutional.

Now here’s the best part – once they find out that the guy is an illegal alien, they can transport him straight to the southern border and order him to walk across back to Mexico (if he’s Mexican). If he refuses, he gets prosecuted. If he goes, he gets a freebie.

And it doesn’t matter whether he was properly stopped. He’s gone and by leaving he admitted he was here illegally thereby immunizing the cops. See how civil rights law works?

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM

No, just don’t write a badly written law.
Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM

That explains your tireless and relentless fight here against Obamacare.

Got it!

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM

No, just don’t write a badly written law. I’m actually not as convinced by the federalism argument, although I think that’s why it’ll lose in court.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Uh-huh. And current law is so well-written that we don’t really have an illegal immigration problem.

It doesn’t matter how “well-written” a law is, if it doesn’t fit the left’s agenda. It’s merely a resistance to enforcing immigration laws, because to do so would deprive the Democrats of a huge prospective voter base.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:38 PM

Thanks. Protip: It’d be easier to tell if you were joking if your jokes were funny. Then you wouldn’t have to say all that stuff afterward!

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM

What you need is a sense of humor. They are on sale this week.

katy the mean old lady on April 27, 2010 at 11:40 PM

A DoJ litigator, a former immigration court clerk, and Chemerisnky (probably the preeminent Con Law scholar in the U.S.)

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Any con law scholar (whatever that is) who says this law is unconstitutional is a fraud. But then again, so is Jug Ears so I guess it doesn’t matter.

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 11:42 PM

You got it. It’s lawful contact and it’s constitutional.

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM

If that’s what lawful contact is, then the law is unconstitutional, because the next part of that sentence says that they can demand your documentation if police have “reasonable suspicion” that you are an illegal immigrant.

The law doesn’t define how police are to “reasonably suspect” whether someone is an illegal immigrant or not. What is a citizen supposed to do in order to not be reasonably suspected? Not mow his lawn? The fact that AZ is making an administrative reg to cover this is great, but leaving it up to the Arizona police to police themselves and promise that they won’t racially profile or whatever is not enough to make the law constitutional.

I realize your, shall we say, creative understanding of constitutional interpretation is that a law is facially constitutional as long as it could *possibly* be used permissibly. I’m not sure where you came up with that, but I’m guessing not in a law book.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:44 PM

That explains your tireless and relentless fight here against Obamacare.

Got it!

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 11:37 PM

I think the health care bill sucks. I think it sucks for a lot of the reasons you all think it sucks. I don’t think it’s unconstitutional, and I want reform, but I want non-sucky reform.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Chemerisnky(sic)

An Anti-American lawyer’s Anti-American lawyer. LOL*

You are in good hands there communistosix.

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Any con law scholar (whatever that is) who says this law is unconstitutional is a fraud.

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Oh, now I feel stupid for engaging with you, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:46 PM

A DoJ litigator, a former immigration court clerk, and Chemerisnky (probably the preeminent Con Law scholar in the U.S.)

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Any con law scholar (whatever that is) who says this law is unconstitutional is a fraud. But then again, so is Jug Ears so I guess it doesn’t matter.

platypus on April 27, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Chemerinsky apparently never met a lefty cause he didn’t like. That’s what makes him “the pre-eminent Con Law scholar in the US”. It’s also what makes Obama a “constitutional scholar”.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Chemerinsky apparently never met a lefty cause he didn’t like. That’s what makes him “the pre-eminent Con Law scholar in the US”. It’s also what makes Obama a “constitutional scholar”.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:47 PM

Not really true. Chemerinsky is liberal as the dickens, but most of the famous legal scholars these days (and really, throughout history) tend to be conservatives/libertarians. Liberal legal scholars don’t get much respect in the legal community.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Not really true.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Very true in the estimation of crr6. And what other grounds do we have for calling Obama a constitutional scholar? He’s shown his ignorance plenty of times.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:54 PM

Oh, now I feel stupid for engaging with you, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:46 PM

Man! You are quite the condescending jerk! Everyone has an opinion on this and you ought to leave some wiggle room for yourself to gracefully admit you were in error if proven so.

Vince on April 27, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Not really true. Chemerinsky is liberal as the dickens, but most of the famous legal scholars these days (and really, throughout history) tend to be conservatives/libertarians. Liberal legal scholars don’t get much respect in the legal community.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:51 PM

So I take it you’re a Randy BarneTTT fan?

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 11:56 PM

Not really true.

Proud Rino on April 27, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Very true in the estimation of crr6.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:54 PM

huh? When did I say the most liberal scholars were the famous, well-renowned ones? PR’s right to a certain extent that most famous legal scholars (and judges) are libertarian. Very, very few are conservative (in the political sense of the word).

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 11:59 PM

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 11:59 PM

For example Easterbrook and Posner are probably the two most brilliant circuit court judges today and both are libertarians.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:02 AM

Man! You are quite the condescending jerk! Everyone has an opinion on this and you ought to leave some wiggle room for yourself to gracefully admit you were in error if proven so.

Vince on April 27, 2010 at 11:55 PM

A court might disagree with me, and that’s fine. I’m OK as long as the argument is reasonable. And I’m willing to be convinced that I’m wrong, I don’t care one way or the other about this law.

But “anyone who disagrees with this law is a fraud”? Look, no matter where you come down on it, the arguments are reasonable. Also – “whatever that is”? How do you not know what a constitutional scholar is? That’s just stupid. I can’t believe I bothered responding to that clown.

Very true in the estimation of crr6. And what other grounds do we have for calling Obama a constitutional scholar? He’s shown his ignorance plenty of times.

ddrintn on April 27, 2010 at 11:54 PM

Lots of people consider him the best con law professor in the county (at least they did when he was at Duke). My point was that liberal legal scholars generally don’t get treated with the same reverence conservative legal scholars do. Chemerinsky is generally respected as the best scholar for being a great lecturer (apparently), writing good articles (IMO, they’re fine but nothing to blow my socks off) and for writing the best hornbook on Con Law (very true).

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:03 AM

So I take it you’re a Randy BarneTTT fan?

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 11:56 PM

BWAHAHA, oh yes. He teaches at the finest “Law Center” in the world.

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:04 AM

huh? When did I say the most liberal scholars were the famous, well-renowned ones? PR’s right to a certain extent that most famous legal scholars (and judges) are libertarian. Very, very few are conservative (in the political sense of the word).

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 11:59 PM

That depends on who’s doing the ranking. And “libertarian” can tend to overlap in either direction.

ddrintn on April 28, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Well you know AP, since ACORN and SEIU don’t have the funds to provide the counter protests to the Tea Partiers, the only fall back now is LaRaza.

Pass the popcorn!

Texas Gal on April 28, 2010 at 12:04 AM

I’m so sorry for trying to talk in language and style other than that of the average supreme court opinion. I could have cut-and-pasted language from any one of a number of opinions and succeeded in doing nothing more than boring everyone to death.

The truth is that laws are presumed constitutional beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr. Know It All Proud Rino, so I’ll just stop trying to be nice about it – you are an idiot and you know next to nothing about con law.

I don’t care about what you think you know but you should care, especially if you’re in the legal profession.

platypus on April 28, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Questions:

1. Did Arizona act stupidly??

2. While at the counter to get your ice cream, could the clerk at Baskin Robbins demand to see proof of Health Insurance coverage before serving you that very unhealthy ice cream sundae?

3. Will the FDA put a warning label on the peanut package warning that the package contains peanuts and salt?

4. Does Michelle know that you are promoting taking children out for ice cream? Haven’t you heard that kids are too fat?

kringeesmom on April 28, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Will Texas follow suit?

carbon_footprint on April 28, 2010 at 12:06 AM

That depends on who’s doing the ranking. And “libertarian” can tend to overlap in either direction.

ddrintn on April 28, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Yeah it’s true. I just think it’s damn near impossible to be a “conservative” legal scholar without being completely schizophrenic. I don’t remember who said it, but it’s true that any good legal theory has results you don’t like. Otherwise it’s not a legal theory, it’s a political theory.

So if there ever were a “conservative” justice (I guess the closest would be Alito) presumably he’d say he’s all for individual rights and civil liberties, but he’d be super deferential towards the government on 4th and 6th amendment issues. And that’d look retarded.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:12 AM

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:12 AM

As brilliant as both of them are, I don’t think anyone should be under any illusions about Scalia or Thomas. Read their criminal law opinions in a street crime case as opposed to a white collar crime case. On the one hand, they’re very concerned about keeping levels of crime low, but if it involves a white collar criminal, well, you better believe Thomas is going to be upset about the prosecution.

These guys are human – they may aspire to higher principles, but they fail pretty often. Scalia comes very close, but his Heller opinion didn’t fit within his philosophy at all.

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:15 AM

These guys are human – they may aspire to higher principles, but they fail pretty often. Scalia comes very close, but his Heller opinion didn’t fit within his philosophy at all.

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:15 AM

One of my pet peeves in LS is how much kids idolize Scalia. Yeah he’s brilliant, and he’s more intellectually honest then pretty much anyone else on the court but he’s human. When the chips are down, he can be just as much of a political hack as anyone else.

Exhibit #3048 of that will be his inevitable embrace of substantive due process in order to apply the 2nd amendment to the states.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:21 AM

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:15 AM

p.s. do you know the name of a white collar crime case I could take a look at?

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:22 AM

So if there ever were a “conservative” justice (I guess the closest would be Alito) presumably he’d say he’s all for individual rights and civil liberties, but he’d be super deferential towards the government on 4th and 6th amendment issues. And that’d look retarded.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:12 AM

So would the guys who wrote the document to begin with, seeing as how there will probably always be some form of tension between the interests of the individual and that of the government.

ddrintn on April 28, 2010 at 12:22 AM

So would the guys who wrote the document to begin with, seeing as how there will probably always be some form of tension between the interests of the individual and that of the government.

ddrintn on April 28, 2010 at 12:22 AM

True, but our Constitution may be the most pro-defendant Constitution on earth. And that flat out doesn’t jibe with the conservative ideology.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:25 AM

True, but our Constitution may be the most pro-defendant Constitution on earth. And that flat out doesn’t jibe with the conservative ideology.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:25 AM

What about “conservative ideology” is not “pro-defendant”?

ddrintn on April 28, 2010 at 12:26 AM

p.s. do you know the name of a white collar crime case I could take a look at?

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:22 AM

The one I was thinking of in particular was Evans v. United States – Thomas wrote the dissent, it’s pretty obvious that he was irritated about how long they took to investigate the guy. I actually agree with Thomas, but considering how “law and order” he is when it’s a street crime, it seems a mite hypocritical.

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:30 AM

What about “conservative ideology” is not “pro-defendant”?

ddrintn on April 28, 2010 at 12:26 AM

You’re kidding.

Tort reform, war on crime, war on drugs, mandatory minimums….you know. The whole “law and order” thing. Don’t play dumb.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:31 AM

What about “conservative ideology” is not “pro-defendant”?

ddrintn on April 28, 2010 at 12:26 AM

Well, typically when people think of a right wing judge, they think of someone who gives the police more leeway with the law, and liberal judges give the defendants more protections.

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:32 AM

Tort reform,

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:31 AM

Ok that was dumb. Strike that.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:33 AM

You’re kidding.

Tort reform, war on crime, war on drugs, mandatory minimums….you know. The whole “law and order” thing. Don’t play dumb.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:31 AM

“War on crime”? Are liberals pro-crime? Don’t play dumb.

ddrintn on April 28, 2010 at 12:33 AM

One of my pet peeves in LS is how much kids idolize Scalia. Yeah he’s brilliant, and he’s more intellectually honest then pretty much anyone else on the court but he’s human. When the chips are down, he can be just as much of a political hack as anyone else.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:21 AM

True. Liberals tend to be more obnoxious undergrads/grad students. But conservatives are the more obnoxious law students.

FWIW I think Stevens and Ginsburg are actually smarter. Scalia just happens to the best writer and funniest. I generally loved reading Scalia opinions.

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:36 AM

“War on crime”? Are liberals pro-crime? Don’t play dumb.

ddrintn on April 28, 2010 at 12:33 AM

Ok well now we’re drifting away from the point. But like I said, the Constitution is an extremely pro-defendant document, and you guys in general tend to be for more draconian punishments and more deference to law enforcement officials.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Holder didn’t appear to be bothered with voter intimidation, now he’s hot on civil rights? What’s changed?

GarandFan on April 28, 2010 at 12:39 AM

But like I said, the Constitution is an extremely pro-defendant document, and you guys in general tend to be for more draconian punishments and more deference to law enforcement officials.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Maybe, but I don’t see where that ties in with “conservative ideology”.

ddrintn on April 28, 2010 at 12:41 AM

FWIW I think Stevens and Ginsburg are actually smarter. Scalia just happens to the best writer and funniest. I generally loved reading Scalia opinions.

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:36 AM

Yeah his dissents are great. I remember reading an interview where he came out and said he often writes his dissents for law students…to entertain them, and to show them an alternative way to look at the issue.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:42 AM

Lots of people consider him the best con law professor in the county (at least they did when he was at Duke).

Proud Rino on April 28, 2010 at 12:03 AM

Lots of people consider Al Gore the world’s expert on Global Warming.

Lots of people are wrong.

Funny how liberals generalize “lots of people” as being positive proof of the correctness of their position.

Of course if the lots of people are tea-party members the generalization has to be a negative, in the eyes of a liberal.

There are lots of people in Arizona who have decided they have had enough of lots of [illegal] people trampling on their rights and their lives.

It’s going to be all about lots of people at the ballot box in November. Liberals don’t like the aspect that it may be the wrong people.

Yoop on April 28, 2010 at 12:44 AM

Lots of people consider Al Gore the world’s expert on Global Warming.

Lots of people are wrong.

Funny how liberals generalize “lots of people” as being positive proof of the correctness of their position.

Of course if the lots of people are tea-party members the generalization has to be a negative, in the eyes of a liberal.

There are lots of people in Arizona who have decided they have had enough of lots of [illegal] people trampling on their rights and their lives.
Yoop on April 28, 2010 at 12:44 AM

Thanks for sharing all that.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Guess this F doesn’t care about 50% black teenage unemployment. I live in AZ. Most fast food joints that use to employ white,black and Mexican-American teenagers now mostly employ Mexican nationals in their 30′s and 40′s.
Just proves that his agenda is really anti-white,anti American. Even if he has to throw teenage black kids under the bus. As long as it pisses off middle age white people he’s for it.

Hummer53 on April 28, 2010 at 1:03 AM

Thanks for sharing all that.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:48 AM

Well, if you law students can put your pomposity aside for a moment, allow me to help you buy a reality clue.

When the people of this country have been pushed far enough and decide to take their country back it ain’t gonna be the lawyers who are doing the heavy lifting. They are going to be too busy saving their asses from the masses.

Yoop on April 28, 2010 at 1:03 AM

I see at Drudge that Janet Napolitano is sending drones to the border.

onlineanalyst on April 27, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Throwing hordes of beta males at the problem isn’t going to solve anything.

ya2daup on April 28, 2010 at 1:37 AM

This fear mongering President needs to educate himself on illegals here in AZ before he acts stupidly again. Many do not want to stay here and become citizens. They want to work here illegally and send money back home (which is Mexico’s 3rd largest industry) and come and go as they please. Obama obviously shows his ignorance about the Arizona law and about going out for ice cream here too. For one thing, most neighborhoods in the cities don’t have ice cream shops. You must get in your car and drive down to a strip mall somewhere. Driving requires a driver’s license. Arizona law states you must carry your driver’s license with you when driving. So if you keep your driver’s license in your wallet, which you’ll need to buy your ice cream (unless you’re going to steal it), then you should be prepared to show ID if for some reason you’re stopped by police.

I’d like to thank those of you who have shown support for AZ. It is much appreciated. :)

GrannySunni on April 28, 2010 at 1:38 AM

should have previewed my comment. Meant to say most neighborhoods in the cities and especially in rural areas don’t have ice cream shops.

GrannySunni on April 28, 2010 at 1:41 AM

You mention that the law proves Obama wrong, but has that ever stopped him?

This guy has been caught lying on camera so many times, yet no one seems to care or call him on it.

Next week I can see him giving a speech where he claims this bill allows them to execute Illegals for fun, if this guy was pinocchio his nose would rival Ron Jeremy

Rbastid on April 28, 2010 at 1:47 AM

That’s pretty much the consensus among anyone who knows anything about federal immigration law. I admittedly didn’t know too much about it before this whole issue came up, but one of my roommates clerked for an immigration court, so he brought me up to speed. He also emailed his buddy who works at the DOJ about it, and he said it’s likely preempted by federal law.

Also, I’ve read a few articles by law professors (including Chemerinsky) who’ve said it’s facially unconstitutional for the same reason. It’s a pretty straightforward issue.

BWHAHAHA!!!! If you are really a “law student” you should know the definition of “proof”. Do you not realize you have no way of proving anything you just posted is true? Anyone can be anybody they want on the internet. Now, let’s try again and provide some actual proof of your position.

Fed45 on April 28, 2010 at 1:49 AM

Message to Hussein: Stop crying Arizona did your job for you!

BigMike252 on April 28, 2010 at 2:11 AM

Hmmm…

So the open-borders types claim that Arizona can’t change federal-immigration laws. OK! I’ll cede that point, for now, but all Arizona is doing is enforcing CURRENT-federal laws.

Is Holder actually going to argue in court that only federal-law-enforcement officers can enforce federal laws?
My Gosh! I mean laws are laws, right? Nah! Holder will milk this thing for all it is worth, politically, and then blast Republicans for being mean to Latinos (mostly Mexicans) who jump the border and break our laws. There will then be a big presser where he sez that the law may be constitutional, but will demand that we need a “comprehensive” (read AMNESTY) solution by congress.

Wee-weed up….

shorebird on April 28, 2010 at 2:16 AM

… and Chemerisnky (probably the preeminent Con Law scholar in the U.S.)

crr6 on April 27, 2010 at 11:31 PM

You earned beaucoup demerits with this statement. All Obama-Bots know that The Won is probably the preeminent Con Law scholar in the U.S. (just ask Himself or his sycophants and they will assert that this most assuredly is so).

ya2daup on April 28, 2010 at 2:32 AM

And what is Obama’s favorite ice cream flavor? Why it’s Ben & Jerry’s Godd@mn Macadamia, Of Course!

Demagoguing Hood’ Rat POS!

Teddy on April 28, 2010 at 6:13 AM

Things aren’t going well for him. The armor’s been cracking for a long time. Look for it to let loose soon in a barrage of verbiage that blows the wheels off his presidency.

I think he’s a good husband and father, and was probably a decent professor. But as president, he’s woefully underqualified…and the pressure is about to get to him.

Grace_is_sufficient on April 28, 2010 at 6:23 AM

Mexicans are just another pawn that the dems are using to move their agenda.
They could care less about the rights of Mexicans, this is an issue they can exploit.
Dems are racists, that is what they promote, they feed off of, how they get elected. No matter, dems will make this a racist issue…the same as 100 years ago, they just turned the sheets inside out.

right2bright on April 28, 2010 at 7:09 AM

Instead of “Yes we can” how about
“Just shut up.”
I’d love to watch him flip out if the crowd started chanting “Just shut up!”

JellyToast on April 28, 2010 at 7:12 AM

True, but our Constitution may be the most pro-defendant Constitution on earth. And that flat out doesn’t jibe with the conservative ideology.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 12:25 AM

Well, it does “jibe” with conservative values…it’s the liberals that have a problem with the “pro-defendant” (whatever that means).
Liberal are pro-accused.
We are the ones who fought for equal rights, we are the ones who want to retain our borders and protect our defendants, we are the ones who want to protect our police.
The attacker is not the defendant, they are the accused.
You get your words and meanings confused…
You are innocent until shown guilty…so when they ask for legal papers, and the illegal immigrants have none, they are shown to be guilty…until then they can roam our streets and steal all they want…

right2bright on April 28, 2010 at 7:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4