unbelievable. it's only 16 pages long. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/...ent-read-the-arizona-law-ive-been-dumping-on/ [rquoter]“I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee. This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that the Arizona law “has the possibility of leading to racial profiling.” He had earlier called the law’s passage “unfortunate,” and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government. Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn’t yet read the legislation. “It’s hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven’t even read the law,” the Texas Republican told the attorney general.[/rquoter] and this: How could the Attorney General of the United States malign a state law as raising profound constitutional questions, imply that the lawmakers who drafted it are racists, and direct a Justice Department review of the law without having read the law?
basso what is your stance on this law, are you as fervent a supporter as you are of other racist GOP initiatives? *mandatory note that thread is, as usual FREE REPUBLIC APPROVED http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2513086/posts
Yes, though I knew it was a racist pile of sh-t prior to having read it - that's what happens when its drafted by white supremacists and when the chief sponsor of the bill is an avid follower of Stormfront and the American Nazi movement. basso what is your stance on this law, are you as fervent a supporter as you are of other racist GOP initiatives? Don't you feel that, since you are a Registered Republican, this will hurt your party in the long run? I hope (and believe) it will.
Well, if he gets an executive summary from a D-AG that says "guess what, I read this racist pile of sh-t on my desk, it totally sucks and was written by Stormfront ass clowns, we should challenge this crap" - no I do not. basso what is your stance on this law, are you as fervent a supporter as you are of other racist GOP initiatives? Don't you feel that, since you are a Registered Republican, this will hurt your party in the long run? I hope (and believe) it will.
If you write 16 page executive summaries you should be fired. basso what is your stance on this law, are you as fervent a supporter as you are of other racist GOP initiatives? Don't you feel that, since you are a Registered Republican, this will hurt your party in the long run? I hope (and believe) it will. Because I read the law and know how it has already been employed - to haul in brown-skinned U.S. Citizens and force them to show their papers. I also know who wrote the law and why.
The law itself is not racist. It specifically says "A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION". It is only there to do what the Federal Gov't should have been doing all along.
Oh, well that meaningless bit of boilerplate solves all problems! Star Jones herself would be forced to agree! I withdraw all my objections for breathing while brown immediately.
No it actually means that r****ds like this guy (and apparently, you) think that you can have Whites & Colored water fountains simply by passing a law that says "we will have whites and colored water fountains, as long as they are constitutionally administered!!!! " Sadly, most first year law students would recognize otherwise. basso what is your stance on this law, are you as fervent a supporter as you are of other racist GOP initiatives? Don't you feel that, since you are a Registered Republican, this will hurt your party in the long run? I hope (and believe) it will. You have offered a number of posts in this thread and not put forth a single opinion on this racist, American Nazi-sponsored law.
This is a stupid comparison, worse than the president and his ice cream cone nightmare. Sam you seem a like a really smart fellow, but the dumbass, exaggerated comparisons you draw make you seem more like Basso than his superior. FWIW, I do think that as the Attorney General of the United States it is prudent for Holder to actually know the language of the law before he criticizes it. Basically all he knew was that a law was passed in Arizona to enforce the immigration laws of the United States and he considered it bad.
Yep. That's exactly what I thought when I read it. JIM CROW. Just because it is not prima facie racist doesn't mean that it is not applied in a discriminatory, unconstitutional fashion. By the way, I would encourage everyone to join with SamFisher and ask Basso: Basso what is your stance on this law, are you as fervent a supporter as you are of other racist GOP initiatives? Don't you feel that, since you are a Registered Republican, this will hurt your party in the long run? I hope (and believe) it will.
Do you think an unconstitutional law, or a law that is unconstitutionally applied, is rendered constitutional by means of an ipse dixit provision that says "this law is really really REALLY constitutional and shouldn't be enforced illegally?" Really? Really? Do you want me to show you that it's not? I mean do you really want me to cite a case for this proposition that says the Arizona state legislature cannot declare a statute to be consitutional ? One of them is pretty obvious even to a non-lawyer, it was called "U.S.A. v. Confederate States of America", it happened back in the 1860's.
It is called disparate impact and is not an exaggeration at all. I would assume that you have a boss, and that boss asks you to review things and explain whether the company should move in a specific direction based on your recommendation. That is exactly what happened in this case.
My boss would not make a decision about the direction of the company and then when asked a question about it say he couldn't comment because he hasn't read (insert subject here). He either has a firm grip of what the law says or he doesn't. If his grip is firm enough to call it unconstitutional he shouldn't then be able to hind behind "I can't comment because I haven't read it."
no it's not. Holder before the senate said he couldn't opine on the law because he hadn't read it. yet, he had no problem opining on the law before the press. why do you suppose that is?
