AG Holder Sues Arizona; GOP Lawmaker = The Suit “Reflects The Height of Irresponsibility and Arrogance”

Loading

Everyone knew the Chicago gang of thugs were gonna pull this, so it’s no surprise:

The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and the state over the nation’s toughest immigration crackdown.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix argues that Arizona’s law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic violations usurps federal authority.

Gov Brewer:

“It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels,” Brewer said in a written statement. “Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice. Today’s filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds.”

From Facebook:

It is done. We’ve expected it for weeks, and now we have it. The DoJ has just filed suit, arguing that SB1070 “violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution”. They will seek an injunction to delay the July 29th implementation date of the law. 1070 architect Kris Kobach says the suit is 100% political and will fail in court, as the law was “specifically crafted” to anticipate such a challenge. Regardless of the outcome, it is disgraceful that the Federal government, given stories such as Sheriff Babeau’s below, is making Arizona the enemy, and defending the enemies of the rule of law.

Co-author Russell Pierce rightfully called the suit an “absolute insult to the rule of law” as well as to Arizona and its residents. It is all that and more. The die is cast. This is much bigger than Arizona now. We will punish those who have done this on November 2nd. SWA will publish detailed records on border security and amnesty of every Representative up for election this year. ANGRY? REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER. That will be the “Peoples’ Injunction”.

For now…contact your Reps: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
Free Congressional Fax from Numbers USA: https://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?id=12180

I find it curious how this Justice Department can trump this up, over illegal immigration, but it can’t manage to handle a the crystal clear case of voter intimidation by Black Panthers.

We all know what this is about. It’s a voter registration drive for the Democrat party.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
38 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Constitution supports Arizona… good luck Barry, you pompous nothing

I note the Obowma Regime suit doesn’t reference race discrimination. That’s weird because it’s all the Regime’s weasels have talked about since Arizona passed their law.

I always listen to Mark Levin. He explained it last week and hinted that his Landmark Legal Foundation would help, if asked.

States Rights! Do you know that by year’s end there could be up to 36 Repug governorships! Hasn’t happened in a 100 years. Dem. gerrymandering of electoral constituancies could be pretty tough in 2012. All hail States Rights!

Historically, we have always been led by presidents who honestly thought that what they were doing was for the benefit of the country. We hurl invectives at opponents saying that they are doing the wrong things, but generally it’s an exaggeration. Even the worst dolts like Carter or ineffective seat-warmers like Ford or narcissists like Clinton honestly wanted (I think) to benefit the nation, even if we disagreed with their methods.

Here we have something new. Here we have a president who appears to willfully make decisions that will lead to disaster. Oil rig explodes in the gulf – use every EPA rule in the book to delay the response. A state steps up to the plate to enforce federal immigration law – stop them. Unsecured mortgages cause an economic meltdown – don’t even address it in the Financial Reform package. At war in Afghanistan – ensure that the troops are not allowed to fight with both hands. Spend money in such a way to ensure that we will have no choice but impose painful austerity measures soon. I could go on and on.

One or two of these can be passed off as just stupidity or ignorance. But all together, it’s looking intentional. Obama is actually trying to trigger a breakdown of the American economy and society.

Dreadnought: hi, yes, nailed it. bye 🙄

Paraphrasing Mark Levin. 3 Premises to this suit.

Arizona is preempting federal law- Ever hear of federal troopers? State troopers uphold federal laws. .” Federal chaos and confusion” is not a policy.

Impeding trade and commerce. I guess that showing your license and registration will impede trade and commerce? Impeding the drug trade and ruining the coyote commerce in undocumented Democrats is anticonstitutional? Twist the 14th ammendment, why don’t you?

Supremacy. Arizona is not taking over the border. Its the federalis that do the customs checks, issue visas, put up fences, detain illegals, and deport same. Arizona is not dictating law. Arizona is upholding the federal laws, again i might add.

This is pandering litigation. A caveat here- the judge in this jurisdiction is a Clinton appointee. There is nothing about discrimination in this lawsuit because asking for ID is non discriminatory.

Hopefully this is informative.

Now this is absolutely absurd.The Bummer Administration wanted to shut down the Yucca Mtn. atomic waste site by decree and failed again through the courts. Sharron Angle wanted to save a few hundred jobs there and by george, a judge followed the rules. Dingy Harry Reid will be going ballistic with this. Our precedent did not follow the law, and I present to you, our new senator from Nevada- Sharron Angle.

Dreadnought – Your post exactly encapulates EVERYTHING that is wrong with Obama and his thugs. You can pretty much take it to the bank that if it’s good for America and its citizenry, Obama will do the OPPOSITE.

I wonder if the people filing the charges have actually read the AZ law?

Interesting opening paragraph, the Obama WH is attempting to show clean hands, no, no, no, it wasn’t Obama that decided to challenge Arizona’s immigration law:

The White House has said the decision to challenge Arizona’s immigration law was out of its hands, left completely up to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and the lawyers at the Justice Department.

Now we have the last two paragraphs. He evidently hasn’t convinced his own party leaders that he is not the culprit behind the challenge

For some nervous Democratic lawmakers, the focus on immigration could present difficulties getting reelected this November. But party leaders are hoping that the president’s rhetoric — and the decision to challenge the Arizona law — will help to highlight a serious political challenge for Republicans over the long term.

The growth of the Hispanic population, and its support of Democrats in 2008, suggests that Republicans could find themselves in a difficult position if that community concludes that the GOP is not friendly to its interests.

Democrats see votes, they may lose in November, but to get their power back, they will shove comprehensive immigration reform with amnesty through in December. IMHO.

“There is probably some short term pain politically given how popular the law is,” said the Democratic strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the government lawsuit had not been filed at the time. “But considering the demographic changes the country is undergoing, long term, there is a lot of upside in advocating for Latinos and comprehensive immigration reform.”

The immigration issue is complex and regional, playing out differently in different parts of the country. In border states, anti-immigrant sentiment can run high, but it also often countered by the feelings of large numbers of Hispanic voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070603405_pf.html

Go read the suit itself… its online…

Its all based on the premise that the Precedent has the authority to NOT enforce Federal Law, if it is not within his Foreign Policy (or other policy) guidelines.

Thus, Arizona by attempting to force the enforcment of Federal Law, infringes on the Precedents Power (to not enforce the law).

Thus, Policy trumps Law… and the States have no means to FORCE the Feds to hold up their end of the Contract, known as the US Constitution.

And thus the Republic ends, to thunderous Legal Briefs.

Can an illegal alien sue a state on immigration issues? I suggest to Governor Brewer’s lawyers that they ask the one who is responsible for starting the suite to prove he is a legal citizen. End of law suit.

Smorgasbord, it is not a “person” filing the lawsuit, it is the US Department of Justice. There are, however, about five other lawsuits from the usual suspects… i.e. ACLU, etal. And anyone can file suit… your legal status, or citizenship… is not a requirement. You’ll remember that Club Gitmo detainees were busy suing Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Bush.

Lawsuits by individuals are specific to personal events, as well as the respondents named in that lawsuit. So “sue[ing] a state on immigration issues” doesn’t make much sense. Law is very deliberative and specific. You attempt a generic or moral argument, against no particular state entity, and you’ll find yourself on the losing/dismissed side quickly. So technically, an illegal could file a lawsuit challenging a law’s Constitutionality, but it would be a waste of time without having some personal infringement and standing on the issue, and that individual would need deep deep pockets.

However that is what the other lawsuits I mentioned above, representing sundry special interests, do. As associations or organizations, they represent a particular class of individuals who are supposedly negatively affected. I would suspect there will be more than a few amicus briefs added to the US DOJ complaint as well.

An illegal alien can file suit against law enforcement if he/she believes they were detained illegally. That’s quite common, from traffic stops (which is being detained/arrested) on up to more serious infractions. Therefore the whining about how this “could” lead to profiling or abuse is absurd. Any law “could” lead to abuse… that’s why we have recourse in our court systems. However potential for abuse has never stopped other laws from being implemented.

Finally, you can sue administrative and enforcement aspects of government. You cannot sue the legislative bodies. Too bad, eh? They’re usually the ones that start all of these headaches.

I wouldn’t put too much faith in what a governor says who lies about beheadings. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/brewer_claims_illegals_are_beheading_people_in_the.php

tadcf: CONSERVATIVES AWARENESS is good for the AMERICANS to help them make their own judgement, About what is going wrong in the leadership majority GOVERNMENT, who feel free to do any laws with EXECUTIVE ORDER, because they are a majority,challenged allways by the
opposition’s warning of wrong doing against the laws of the LAND,OF this beautiful AMERICA
WHICH is hurting and still tolerante to direct their hopes on the laws of this SOVEREIGN REPUBLIC.
WhICH survived theses CENTURYS, WHICH they SWORE to PROTECT, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

@tadcf

Regardless of Gov. Brewer’s claims, there have been numerous beheadings on the border from TX to CA, all in connection with the Mexican drug cartels, and specifically, the Zeta gang along the TX border. One does not need to make that great a leap to see that violence spreading across the border from Mexico will carry these acts onto US soil. As for this:

I wouldn’t put too much faith in what a governor says who lies about beheadings.

Possibly you should remind yourself that politicians of all stripes make unsubstantiated claims, for many different reasons, and pinpointing one particular instance of an “opposition” government official opens you up to claims of hypocrisy, especially as you have posted here previously defending Obama and other liberals when caught making unsubstantiated claims.

As for your words about conservatives railing on the admin and the Jones Act, Mata has WAY more info on it and I will leave it to her to correct you, if correction is needed. Knowing the source material and websites you frequent as evidenced by your links, corrections are probably in order.

Mata note: I dug this out of the spam trash bin, although it will be the one and only time I do so… this poster has also played the sock puppet game here, commenting as both Benito and Paul. Consider this your one time grace, Montana/Benito/Paul. As far as why? Figured you FA’er would have a field day with this onet.

~~~

The Tea Bag Party are just “haters not debaters” or as others have dubbed them “screamers not dreamers”, with their failed attempts at stopping Healthcare reform, they say they respect the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence but they do not mind passing laws, through weak Governors (no one voted for this crazy) who only cares about getting elected Governor, on the backs of undocumented workers, that will not pass Constitution muster.

Brewer signed into law;

1. S.B. 1070,
2. No permit conceal weapons law,
3. The famous Birthers law,
4. Banning Ethnic studies law,

5. Could she be behind the Mural in Prescott, Arizona, ordered to be whiten,
6. On deck to pass, no citizenship to babies born to undocumented workers,

7. If she can read she should look up Arizona’s House Bill 2779 from two years ago (which was un-constitution and failed when legally challenged),
8. The boycotted Martin Luther King Day, what idiots don’t want another holiday? Yes, you guessed it Arizona.

Well Arizona, you can boycott new holidays and keep passing crazy laws and the rest of us will continue to challenged them in a court of law and continue to add cities to our Boycott of your state.

I real cannot believe anything that comes out of Brewer’s mouth, in an interview she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (war ended 1945) but of course we find out the truth that father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955. But we are suppose to believe everything else she says, right! No one voted for you for Governor, yet you keep listening to the tiny brains of the crazies and signing into law everything that comes into their feeble minds, it only make you look dumb, stupid or racist, or maybe all three.

As for the Tea Bag Party, their phony patriotism is sickening; they are just racists going by another name. We all know you are just itching to put a sheet on their head? Let’s face it the Republicans had eight years to deal with health care, immigration, energy (remember Cheney’s secret meetings with oil companies where loosening regulation and oversight were sealed), climate change and financial oversight and governance and they failed. It appears that the Republican Party is only good at starting wars (two in eight years, with fat contracts to friends of Cheney/Bush) but not at winning wars as seen by the continuing line of body bags that keep coming home. The Republicans party will continue turned inward to their old fashion obstructionist party (and their Confederacy appreciation roots) because they continue to allow a small portions (but very loud portion) of their party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” to rule their party. I will admit that this fringe is very good at playing “Follow the Leader” by listening to their dullard leaders, Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush, Savage, Sarah Bailin, Orly Taitz, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the Blowhards and acting as ill programmed robots (they have already acted against doctors that perform abortions).

The Birthers and the Tea Bag party crowd think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around with face paint in the parks playing commando, the majority are mature and understand that the world is more complicated and grey than the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point. The world is complicated and people like Hamilton, Lincoln, and Roosevelt believed that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now it’s about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. For a party that gave us Abraham Lincoln, it is tragic that the ranks are filled with too many empty suits and the crazy Birthers who have not learned that the way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked internet lies, then, and only then, do you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called “Internet facts”. Let’s face it no one will take the Birthers seriously until they win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. I heard that Orly Taitz now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC), she wants to re-establish a family values party, that is like saying that the Catholic Church cares about the welling being of children in their care, too late for that. Yee Haw!

He/She/It must be a glutton for punishment… LOL

Lets talk about Obama and his designated knee-capping don at the DoJ Holder. One word: Insane.

British forces went to Lexington and Concord to seize the militia arms. The British general’s intent was to prevent the colonials from getting into mischief because tensions were very high with a populace chaffing under a Crown governor after George III stripped the colony of its original charter and government. Now tactically for the British it made sense, but to the colonials it was proof the British government, ne George III, cared not for them and would leave these people depending upon British regular forces in Boston to save them from Indian raids. After all the French and Indian Wars was barely a generation in the past. Naturally the colonials were not going to be left swinging in the wind and thus the American Revolution started.

In the present age we once again have a leader appointing upon himself rights and powers normally vested in the peoples legislature, be it termed Congress or Parliament. He has elected czars who are not accountable to anyone save him. He has bypassed court rulings to push his agenda. He has impeded local and private citizens actions answering to a disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. And now he moves against a state that is trying to protect its citizens after suffering wanton and depraved murder of those citizens, blantant destruction of property, and flagerant flouting of all laws with legal bullying while ignoring such basic concepts as states are soverign entities who have voluntarily entered into a compact to create the Federal government.

So there are very strong indications of this boiling downto a states rights issue, how far will the Federal government stretch its tentacles via the Commerce clause? That is one thing this lawsuit will determine. Assuming the judge does not laugh himself to death reading the lawsuit where it admits the Federal government of Barrack Obama chooses not to enforce legal laws passed by the Congress and vetted by various other courts. This is the kind of government one gets when an amateur is elected to a position far above his head.

I wonder if I have enough popcorn for this schlock theatre?

@oil guy #3

If only we could get 36 sure-fire conservative states together for a constitutional convention to straighten out a few things, like proving qualifications for office and anchor children.

@the sock puppet formerly known as Benito
You were crazy and misinformed under all your pseudonyms. Just for a start to all the cr*p you left, Brewer did not sign a birther bill, although I think something about enforcing the law will be coming up in the next session. Brewer was SoS in 2007-2008 and has a unique place among SoSs in having personally been lied to by the 0 in his primary petition. If I were her, I’d be keen on making the next election candidates fess up. And you don’t even know what it means–“birther” is just a pejorative like “tea-bagger.” You can’t even get a fact straight so you resort to nasty names. Loser.

ps, Benito et al, investigating Senator Ensign would be a good thing. He may be a Republican but he’s as crooked as they come. What is your problem with enforcing the rules, anyway?

Govenor Brewer has been named on the Suit against Arizona. She is in a unique situation
and with her being named in the suit she has standing to petition for “Que Warrento” in
Washington DC.

If she only mentions the SS# that the One is usuing and requests all information about
the imposter, she will be historically famous no matter what comes out about the Russian,
Muslem imposter.
The truth will save the Republic.
With all its shams,drudgery & Broken Dreams it is still a Beautiful World. Be careful.

desiderata, Brewer has been named specifically in her capacity as Governor. Since the very old practice of “quo warranto” is usually used by the prosecutor, who is charging the public official for overstepping their authority, I’m curious as to why you think she would be petitioning to “quo warranto” herself? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to impart.

desiderata: I love that name, yes I hope she read your comment, and we have PATTER who will surely take note and relay it to GOVERNER BREWER, bye thank you. 🙄

Whether this particular suit succeeds or not, this law is already in place in Rhode Island, Missouri, and Virginia, at least. They have already been sued unsuccessfully. Other states want similar laws. As the old commie whatsisname (was it Bill Ayers?) said, a spark starts a prairie fire. This fire seems to be burning in at least 50% and very possibly 75% of Americans. The rest, assuming about 30% opposed, happen to be close to the number of hard-core liberals and non-tax payers. It isn’t going away, in spite of the shill newspapers (eg the Arizona Republic).

We assume the Obamanoids are against it because of various things, we should work to find more about the possibilities. Some: Support the Drug Trade; Support Mexico’s economy; lure Hispanic voters. Somehow not satisfying stories, I’m moved to present a more thrilling plot.

Since the birther issue has come up in this discussion, it should be included. What if 0 is in fact, not a citizen? and all his open borders positions and people are there to support his claim to legitimacy. If others got amnesty he could too. This to me is an eminently sensible theory. If he were in fact a non-citizen he would be guilty of many, many crimes (not treason though, if he isn’t a citizen.) He gets amnesty, poof, there goes desperation. He’s already wangled an adoption into an American Indian tribe as a fall-back.

And that’s the reason the Narcissistic Emperor sent all his troops against Queen Jan the Good. He knew she was aware of his weakness and working to overcome it with mighty legislation that would uncover his false credentials.
Next chapter: Every citizen must have at least one American citizen parent, even if born on American soil. (another way 0 could fail the NBC test)

Martaharley

Govenor Brewer was entered as a defendant and of by what authority(Quo Warrento)
can be used as a defense against Holder et al: He may not have been appointed by a legal tenant in the White House.
I still don’t know that the defendand cannot ask for by what authority
the DOJ has to bring a law suit against her? They think she has standing by putting her
name on the lawsuit.

Exercise caution in your business affairs for the world is full of trickery!
desiderata

Love the sign off, desiderata…. trickery indeed.

I see, so you are suggesting that Brewer bring quo warranto against Holder? Well, on the face of it, that certainly won’t fly because immigration, plus the ability to apply/enforce that law with their chosen discretion (and ain’t that bizarre on it’s own), lies in the hands of the DOJ and State Department. So that’s a lost cause. They have full federal authority via US Code to bring a lawsuit… even if incorrect interpretation of the law. (which SCOTUS will ultimately decide)

Now, if you suggesting she go the route that Holder and the DOJ have no power because he was appointed by Obama, who’s birth is in question in the minds of many, I suggest that also won’t fly. First you’d have to get Obama’s legal qualification in front of judges, and an opinion that he is not qualified via Constitutional status. Then, after that, you can argue Holder etal are not legal appointees. Cart before the horse.

And of course Brewer has standing. But she has no recourse to battle the feds on what you suggest.

It is well known by many reading this that Obama picked the lawyer that will represent the administration in this matter. His hands are all over this law suite. The “Quo Warranto”
or by what authority does President Obama’s policies trump the Constitution?

The whole DOJ defense is about administration policy being trumpt by a State Govenor, in
the case of Govenor Brewer. The complaint made is personal and the “Quo Warranto” would
be against Obama!!!! She could petition on the grounds that the suite states her even though
a politician, the DOJ have been personal about these proceedings. So she has standing
and should be able to get “Quo Warranto” by them using Obama policy statement as mentioned
in the lawsuite

Holder and Obama has made it personal if they didnot have in evidence that Obama’s policies
needed to be guarded and trying to take Govenor Brewer down a peg by putting her name
on the document then she would probable not be able to ask for “Quo Warranto” but they
are not the brightest bulbs in the pack that is why Obama picked the Gitmo lawyer. Obama’s
policies are synonomous with this law suite.

“Avoid loud and aggresive persons ,they are vextacious to the spirit.” (And freedom)

Technically, desiderata, those who’s “hands are all over this lawsuit” is the ACLU. If you read their own complaint, filed May 17th in the same AZ District court, you’ll find the arguments are almost identical, save the extra SEIU BS. What I suspect is that the O’lawyers counseled with ACLU lawyers to come up with the same lone attack they could do.

While I agree that I believe AZ will prevail in the end, I’m not sure what O’policies you see as trumping the Constitution. The power of immigration enforcement and policy does lie with the feds, primarily.

What the feds are trying to do in this lawsuit is lay out that they, and they alone, have the right to create immigration policy directly (aka the Supremacy Clause). And they again call in their favorite Commerce Clause to justify their seizure of those exclusive rights. They want to reserve the power *not* to enforce the law because of foreign policy and immigration. Now the 10th Amendment doesn’t say that states have the right to create immigration policies that do not usurp federal policies. But then again, it also doesn’t say they don’t either. I hear a lot of lawyers on the talk circuits saying SCOTUS has ruled on this, but I’ve poured thru the SCOTUS decisions/opinions archives for the past week, and I don’t find anything specifically related to states rights and their immigration policies. I did, however, find an interesting case where they were trying to deport a defendant (Lopez) for being involved in a cocaine charge. In that case, the state law made his crime a felony, but federal immigration law only saw it as a misdemeanor. The court said they couldn’t use the state law as the crime for deportation, and the guy’s living happily ever after somewhere in the states even now.

In fact, in the DOJ brief, they only cite one 1950 SCOTUS opinion, Knauff v Shaughnassy. And they do so only to cherry pick one phrase to suit their point – that immigration control and policy is …a field where flexibility and the adaptation of the congressional policy to infinitely variable conditions constitute the essence of the program.” That case was all about the AG denying a hearing to a war bride after WWII. The couple appealed, but the High Court upheld that the AG and the POTUS – especially in times of emergencies – could impose additional criteria on an alien’s entry.

Weirdly enough, that’s an argument where the AG and POTUS were more strict than standard immigration law allowed. They are now using that to argue for a POTUS weakening standard immigration law. As I said, bizarre. And I don’t think the SCOTUS is going to buy that mule’s manure.

As for states rights and immigration policy, that will be interesting to see what SCOTUS has to say. Take, for example, California’s emission laws that are more strict than federal laws. In order to do that, CA had to get an EPA waiver/approval. Will the courts decide that states have to get State Dept and DOJ approval of laws that affect immigrants? It’s an ugly precedent to start, if that’s where they go. For then anytime a state wants to modify something that is covered by federal law, everyone will be begging for approval from sundry federal agencies.

And you can’t counter file a suit with quo warranto against Obama. He’s not personally named in his capacity, nor is there any “Obama policy” stated in the 25 page complaint. The brief does refer often to the power of the President (non generic), Congress, the State Department and the DOJ. Additionally, the lawsuit is coming from the appropriate authority – the DOJ.

But were I a betting woman, I’m guessing SCOTUS is going to reach down and pick this puppy up without it traveling thru the normal appellate process. And I think this is going to be Obama’s third strike in the courts… 1st with trying to close Yucca Mtn, and 2nd with trying to get the moratorium reinstated (Court of Appeals said no to their appeal for an injunction today… but that doesn’t mean the drillers will go back to work since they don’t know the ultimate outcome). The hoops you want to hurdle are not only dead ends, but are likely to be very unnecessary.

desiderata: hi again, some of our other commenters was saying that GOVERNER BREWER
IS very smart and has a group of very knowledgeble peoples around her. we have
read some interesting comments from her and her group, and the majority of ARIZONA is
supporting her also, and the AMERICANS are sending money to support the legal expanses, that she will have to go through, I personly am confident that she will win, the only thing that could be working against this could be the delays the HOLDER GUY could make to drag the actions
of the court, so the final decisions favoring her could never occur, this government’s way of doing or not doing what they are suppose to do. bye 🙄 thank’s for your comment

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Tea Party for electing Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown since he voted for the Financial Reform Bill and help the President of the United States with another legislative victory, thank you Tea Party. Have you heard of “Unintended Consequences” or “Blowback”? Was he working for the Tea Party, himself or our Country, hmmm only you can answer this one?

The problem is this. Tea Party candidates will win a number of these congressional races because local districts are often safely partisan in nature. They can make their wild, unfounded claims, crazy accusations, etc., and win. That means not only are we likely to see an increase in Republican seats in both houses, we’re likely to see more antics, more insanity, more stupidity. At the same time they’re going to do everything they can to derail Obama’s policies which will likely mean high unemployment, a moribund economy, and more compromises on policy positions that make no one happy.

That could literally mean that if the Republicans put up a legitimate candidate in 2012, they could win. Such a result is bad enough, but the likely response for the Democrats is to move further to the “middle” to placate voters. As we’ve seen over the last decade, the “middle” in American politics is basically on the verge of being an 80s Republican. Increasingly that means we’ll have a political landscape of a conservative party and ratfuck insane parties. The former, given it’s track record, slowly moving to the right, the latter, given it’s track record, loudly screaming “socialism, communism, fascism!!!”

If we continue on this course, privatization will be socialism.

Dogmeat: hi, YOU cannot have more STUPIDITY than you have now, and what about
ARIZONA and HOLDER pursue of LAWSUITS? IS is stupid or not
THE TEAPARTY are very PATRIOTIC, and no one can touch their TRUE MEANING for AMERICA.
bye