Green Room

Chuck Schumer: We’ll Just See About Who Runs the State of Arizona

posted at 6:40 pm on April 25, 2012 by

Because Democratic Senators can’t/won’t pass a budget, (and Mz. Wasserman Schultz doesn’t understand the process), Chuck Schumer says that in lieu of the Arizona immigration law getting upheld in the Supreme Court, he’s going to introduce legislation to over-turn the Court’s decision:

Anticipating an unfavorable ruling, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is a critic of the Arizona law, said Tuesday that if the court does uphold the state’s law, he will introduce legislation to overturn that decision and grant the federal government sole control on immigration matters.

Mr. Schumer’s legislation would also overturn a 2011 Supreme Court case that upheld a separate Arizona law that requires all businesses in the state to check employees’ legal status using E-Verify, the federal government’s electronic verification system.  link

Got that?  Schumer could care less about State’s rights and plans to over-turn the electronic verification system to check legal status. Yet, ironically, he‘s in favor of requiring Senate campaigns to change over to electronic fundraising records to save a half million in paper annually:

“For transparency’s sake, it is time for the Senate to move to a modern system of filing of its campaign finance reports,” said Schumer, who chairs the Senate Rules Committee. “This bill would not only save hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxpayers each year, it would also help provide more immediate and complete access to campaign spending reports. The public deserves the utmost transparency when it comes to campaign finances, and the Senate’s switch to an e-filing system is long overdue.”

You’ve got to wonder how Schumer’s going to track the illegal immigration money with no e-verify.  Perhaps Mr. Schumer’s retirement party is “long overdue”?

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Chuck U. Shumer.

Yet another poster-boy for term limits.

Joe Mama on April 25, 2012 at 6:53 PM

And be sure an note that Finestein’s opposition to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill is that it “would violate states rights“.

Don’t you wish you were a Democrat so you could justify you actions on both sides of an issue?

Chuckie needs to retire, too bad he’s in a “safe” district.

CrazyGene on April 25, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Chuck U is a perfect way to address this guy ..

wheels on April 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM

This year I get to vote against all three of my federal representatives – both NY senators and my House rep – including Chucky and Timmy Bishop.

TheOldBear on April 25, 2012 at 7:42 PM

arrogant pr!ck. Nice hair plugs, too. Front of his scalp looks like a fingernail brush…

bofh on April 25, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Senator Chuckie: the State of Arizona runs the State of Arizona… that’s what you DIMocrats don’t seem to understand…

Khun Joe on April 25, 2012 at 8:45 PM

I think he’s about to learn who runs Congress.

crosspatch on April 25, 2012 at 9:42 PM

We’ll just see who runs you out of your nice comfy seat, mop-top.

MelonCollie on April 26, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was “civis Romanus sum.” 40 years ago, it was “Ich bin ein Berliner.” Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is “Soy de Arizona.

There are many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free America and a statist America.

Let them come to Arizona.

There are some who say that socialism is the wave of the future.

Let them come to Arizona.

And there are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, that if we restrict a citizens’ legal right to self-defense, we will reduce the amount of crime in our neighborhoods.

Let them come to Arizona.

And there are even a few who say that it is true that illegal immigration is technically illegal, the benefits of ignoring the law outweigh the costs.

Que vengan a ArizonaLet them come to Arizona.

ExUrbanKevin on April 26, 2012 at 12:20 AM

How does this guy get elected?

KOOLAID2 on April 26, 2012 at 1:11 AM

How does this guy get elected?

KOOLAID2 on April 26, 2012 at 1:11 AM

He’s an institution Koolaid, just like Pelosi, and Teddy Kennedy was.

Rovin on April 26, 2012 at 6:12 AM

We Arizonans don’t give a crap what this tool says. It’s not like he can do anything other than flap his gums anyway. You Dim morons lost your majority in the House in 2010, and you’ll lose even more seats in 2012. Threaten all you want; you don’t have the power to do anything now, and you’ll have even less power after the November elections.

So keep talking, chump.

AZCoyote on April 26, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Great idea: a whole bunch of federal agents, not doing any actual work, but just making sure that local law enforcement DON’T enforce federal laws.

Another hundred thousand jobs Saved Or Created(TM) by the Democrats.

logis on April 26, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Someone needs to tell Chuckie about the 10th amendment. Then they should tell him about how he’s working for the people and some of those other, long ago forgotten civics lessons.

bflat879 on April 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Who run Bartertown?

CurtZHP on April 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Senator Chuckie: the State of Arizona runs the State of Arizona… that’s what you DIMocrats don’t seem to understand…

Ohh, they understand it perfectly….it is that they hate the fact the states still have too much independence from the Imperial Rulers in DC and some states are currently expressing that independence in ways some in DC don’t like. Imperial Senator Chuck U and his cohorts want desperately to correct that problem.

hawkeye54 on April 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Someone needs to tell Chuckie about the 10th amendment. Then they should tell him about how he’s working for the people and some of those other, long ago forgotten civics lessons.

The civic lessons aren’t forgotten in DC, just despised and ignored by many in CONgress.

hawkeye54 on April 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Chuck Schumer: We’ll Just See About Who Runs the State of Arizona.

Yea right.

Let’s see a New Yorker come out west and tell the locals he’s running things. He can start at the Buckhorn Bar in Laramie on a Friday night.

See how that works out…..

MichaelGabriel on April 26, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Schumer could care less about State’s rights…

Do you mean “could not care less…?”

Just saying, because the meaning changes, although I’m pretty sure we know what you meant…

Hat Trick on April 26, 2012 at 11:47 AM

This moron is the poster boy for congressional stupidity and arrogance. The sooner you liberals get rid of him, the better. Oh wait….. you love him. Fools….

ultracon on April 26, 2012 at 11:57 AM

If republicans had any cajones, they would institute legislation to clean up the state of New York.

ultracon on April 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Hat Trick on April 26, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I looked at that line several times before posting Hat Trick, and I’m glad that like you, most will understand the meaning. (I have used the phrase in the past: “you could care less about my welfare” as an example, however, I wouldn‘t say “you could not care less about my welfare“). In retrospect, for clarity, I could have just said, “Schumer doesn’t give a rats ass about state’s rights”, but I can no longer just go into the post and edit it.

Rovin on April 26, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Who votes for either scumbag Schumer or Kerry? Schumer sounds like he is trying to encourage a Civil War!

el Vaquero on April 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Aside from the issue of the 10th Amendment, how is it exactly that Congress can pass legislation to overturn a SCOTUS ruling? How does that make sense? If SCOTUS rules that something is legal or illegal, they presumably have justified it as such using the Constitution and precedent (whether we agree or not is a different matter), and therefore to overturn the ruling would seem to require changing the Constitution to allow/disallow whatever it was that SCOTUS struck down/upheld. And Congress doesn’t have the power to arbitrarily change the Constitution, even with majority passage in both houses. That requires an amendment ratified by the states.

Has my logic failed somewhere? I have studied pretty hard to garner a proper understanding of the Constitution and the Founders intentions and arguments surrounding it.

If my logic has failed in this case, and Congress can simply write legislation to overturn a SCOTUS decision, then Dems shouldn’t be getting all spun up about Citizens United or the ObamaCare cases. Just pass a law afterwards telling SCOTUS to go f*ck themselves, right?

gravityman on April 26, 2012 at 2:35 PM

As a proud (native) Arizonan I state that this is why we need to do all we can to take both houses and the presidency.

derecho on April 26, 2012 at 3:05 PM