Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, but leaves key provision in place (1070)
Fox News Channel (link added) ^ | 6/25/12 | Staff

Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351 next last
To: Sacajaweau

“...The very purpose of job for life....was they wouldn’t have to be owing to anyone”

What makes you think the king wouldn’t try it? And who would stop him if he tried that power grab? Our government was made for honorable men—neither obama OR holder qualifies.


101 posted on 06/25/2012 7:58:09 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

But they retained the important part.


102 posted on 06/25/2012 7:58:27 AM PDT by MindBender26 (America can survive 4 years of Romney. She cannot survive another 4 years of an unfettered Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Since we’re also talking about obamacare, has anyone ever explained how people on welfare that pay no taxes can be forced to “Pay” insurance premiums?


103 posted on 06/25/2012 7:59:55 AM PDT by Terry Mross (To My Liberal Kinfolk: Don't call, email or write until you've gotten your brain fixed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The States need to attack illegal immigration in areas where they have primacy. If, for example, a State refused to issue birth certs for children born to illegals, that is solely within its purview. If the feds disagree, they can issue their own certs.

If a State were to require EVERY citizen to get a work permit (which could be very pro forma, issued with drivers licences for example), and require everyone to provide a permit to work, that is not stepping on fed immigration law.

States are going to have to be more creatively aggressive about enforcing their end of federalism. To me, that’s the upshot of today’s ruling (and the pattern that has led to it).


104 posted on 06/25/2012 7:59:55 AM PDT by ziravan (Are you better off now than you were $9.4 Trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoKoolAidforMe

If there is any hope for us we can’t start with a list taht is all conservative republicans to be elected out!

The list has to start with names like Obama, Reid, Pelosi. Otherwise we are sunk.


105 posted on 06/25/2012 8:00:03 AM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

By that logic if the US has a law against “hate crimes” that means the states can have one since the US preempts them.


106 posted on 06/25/2012 8:00:03 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26; P-Marlowe

Nope, not quite. They said the court sent it back to the lower court.

Article says: “One section — allowing police to check immigration status after legal stopes — sent back to 9th District Court for review.”

The 9th District simply has it back; they don’t have instructions to permit police to check status. They could do that, but only time will tell.


107 posted on 06/25/2012 8:01:12 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau; kevkrom; pabianice; vikingd00d; txrangerette; xzins

From live ScotusBlog:

Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto.

Justice Scalia began his dissent by saying that he would uphold all parts of the Arizona law.

Justice Scalia is not only dissenting from the bench, but he has produced a written copy of the bench statement for the press. It is 7 pages long.

http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/


108 posted on 06/25/2012 8:01:27 AM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
"Why are people here attacking a couple of justices and attacking Bush over this?"

Because they are so certain that their interpretation of the Constitution is the ONLY correct interpretation--even though it contradicts the words and intent of the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution is not even close to ambiguous on this issue, states do NOT have the right to institute their own policies on immigration or naturalization just as they cannot enact treaties with foreign nations outside of the wishes of the federal government.

In all these cases, the federal government exercises absolute authority.


The real problem with the decision is that the SCOTUS apparently saw no remedy for states when the federal government is NOT doing its constitutionally mandated job.
109 posted on 06/25/2012 8:01:51 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Member of the BBB Club - Bye-Bye-Barry!!! President Barack "Down Low" Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye
Yep, this country is going down the tubes to ruin.
When does Rush tell us it is time to emigrate?
110 posted on 06/25/2012 8:02:04 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

LOL, gimmee a break. How would you expect them to act? They have the base to keep excited. The will spin any decision as a win in some way for the obumbler.

Stopping what may turn out to be illegal aliens for infractions is not much of a problem since cars have broken tail lights and such and if you watch someone long enough they will violate some traffic law. Once stopped their status can be determined legally. If found to be illegal they can be shipped out.


111 posted on 06/25/2012 8:02:21 AM PDT by scram2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Makes me think the health care mandate will be allowed to stay.

Makes me think this is the umpire's "makeup call" (albeit, announced first) for killing Mengelecare.

112 posted on 06/25/2012 8:04:01 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Arizona tried to mirror the Feds law on immigration.

now Arizona should go back and sue the Feds to uphold federal law.


113 posted on 06/25/2012 8:05:59 AM PDT by stylin19a (Obama - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Perhaps we can use this to our benefit. Since the court has now held that not only do the the states not have the “obligation” to enforce Federal law, it appears that they now do not even have the “right” to enforce federal law. Therefore, as Gov. of Arizona, I would say to the Feds, “we no longer will provide any assistance in enforcing Federal law as it relates to collection of taxes, enforcing any Obamacare provisions, etc.”. Essentially, for all Federal laws, “you’re not getting our help - good luck with that”.

How could a court come back and now say, “you’re not allowed to enforce THIS federal law, but you MUST enforce others...”


114 posted on 06/25/2012 8:06:35 AM PDT by jcwky (Our response?...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to set up a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. This never was an issue for states’ rights.

Arizona and other states should sue the US government for failure to enforce Congressionally-adopted laws regarding naturalization (and illegal aliens). The “we can’t wait” argument would be as dictatorial when made by the states as it is by Obama, in my opinion.


115 posted on 06/25/2012 8:06:50 AM PDT by Piranha (If you seek perfection you will end up with Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

Agreed. I’ve argued before them and I HATE that. It’s not a game and, often, they act like it is. I hate the “we are royalty” feeling SCOTUS projects.


116 posted on 06/25/2012 8:06:59 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm; dfwgator

To p_r_s:

For once we agree...

That I know of, anyway.

Those who say Obama won this are beyond stupid.

Those who attack Roberts and Kennedy forgot to notice, the ruling was UNANIMOUS.

The provisions that say it’s an AZ crime to enter AZ illegally and obtain employment there have been ruled to be pre-empted by federal laws already in existence.

The law against illegal immigration remains in effect, the court ruled 8-0 that it’s a federal law and cannot at the same time be a state law.

It upheld for now the provision that cops in AZ can ask for legal status information in the normal pursuit of their law enforcement duties, apparently leaving door open a crack to have another go at the issue, later.

We wish the whole law was upheld as it was written.

But with a unanimous decision how can people keep attacking a couple of justices??

To dfwg:

Kennedy was a Reagan appointee.

Roberts, a W appointee, was joined by every other justice except the recused Kagan.


117 posted on 06/25/2012 8:07:05 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: xzins

EXACTLY...SENT BACK TO LOWER COURT TO FIND A BETTER WAY TO DESTROY IT.


118 posted on 06/25/2012 8:07:23 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Could AZ appeal a ‘no’ decision by the 9th Circus back to the SCOTUS?


119 posted on 06/25/2012 8:07:23 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
How long before someone sues to stop "sanctuary city" practices on the basis of this decision?

Who would have "standing" to do so?

120 posted on 06/25/2012 8:07:47 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
It's not just "logic" it's Article VI Clause II:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

121 posted on 06/25/2012 8:09:13 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

It’s my understanding that the federal government is expected to assist when a state needs help repelling an invasion.

However, the initial defense lies with the state itself. A state may not “engage in War unless actually invaded” but I think Arizona could make a pretty strong case that some of these fence-jumpers are FAR more dangerous than humble lettuce-pickers in search of employment.

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” gives us a hint where Arizona could get enough troops to close the border and stop the invasion.


122 posted on 06/25/2012 8:09:41 AM PDT by DNME (A monarch's neck should always have a noose around it. It keeps him upright. — Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

This what the governor put on her FaceBook page:
The heart of SB 1070 was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sign petition and Stand with Arizona at www.janpac.com


Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.

The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.

Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, “We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.”


123 posted on 06/25/2012 8:10:57 AM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UB355; Lancey Howard; scram2; DTogo

Because if the ruling is against state rights, and for federal power, the inclination may be to rule the same way for health care.

Of course, I hope I am wrong.


124 posted on 06/25/2012 8:11:39 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
The real problem with the decision is that the SCOTUS apparently saw no remedy for states when the federal government is NOT doing its constitutionally mandated job. Bingo! Winner! That's the issue. Spot on on the rest of your post as well.
125 posted on 06/25/2012 8:11:39 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: scram2

As I asked earlier, who is going to “ship them out”? All they can do is turn them over to ICE. Then ICE decides whether or not to ship them out. And obama just decreed that they’re not going to deport about a million or so.

So, here’s a scenario. The cops pull over a truck load of illegals for a broken tail light. The driver is asked for his papers and he proves he’s here legally. However, the other 20 or so weren’t driving so they didn’t break the law, thus, their status can’t be checked.


126 posted on 06/25/2012 8:11:43 AM PDT by Terry Mross (To My Liberal Kinfolk: Don't call, email or write until you've gotten your brain fixed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: All
The best part of the law was upheld. The rest is covered by FEDERAL law. The SCOTUS made the correct decision in this case.

As to the states 'losing' their rights, it is far from that. Illegals can be detained for ICE. It didn't say how long, or where, and AZ has a LOT of desert space. Once handed over to ICE, it's a FED issue.

When the illegals realize there is no time-limit on deportation, they will leave or go someplace 'safer'.

127 posted on 06/25/2012 8:12:46 AM PDT by Wizdum (My job is to get you to shoot soda out your nose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

But that’s only where they are contrary. What about where they are complimentary?


128 posted on 06/25/2012 8:12:46 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: C19fan; pabianice; redgolum; Menehune56; animal172; The Sons of Liberty; Tanniker Smith; kidd; ...
Rejected: Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor;

This sounds like a lazy state legislature that doesn't much care for the 9th and 10th in this regard.

If their law really did merely rubber-stamp "whatever federal alien-registration laws" might be in effect, then the State would be committing itself to enforce (instead of ICE, DHS) whatever immigration registration Congress hands down.

If that is the intent, then as others have posted, AZ law enforcement could've been directed to do same and then instead sued the feds to pay for it. No state legislation needed to bind their hands.

129 posted on 06/25/2012 8:12:55 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Because Bush was a moron big government fake conservative?


130 posted on 06/25/2012 8:13:27 AM PDT by hitchwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

It is not huge at all. It was sent back for review. ALL SCOTUS said was, in the abstract, sure, if they have “reason to believe” but they held off on ruling what this was.

STOP listening to ppl in “news entertainment”. This is a disastrous ruling. I was a Prosecutor for 25 years and argued before SCOTUS and read this decision. If we keep believing the “spin”, then we’ll just sit around and think everything is fine.


131 posted on 06/25/2012 8:13:58 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
THE RULING WAS UNANIMOUS.

LET ME REPEAT.

UNANIMOUS.

Where did you find this? It's not showing up in the articles I've read.

BTW, Governor Brewer is claiming victory.

132 posted on 06/25/2012 8:14:34 AM PDT by InterceptPoint (TIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: pabianice; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

133 posted on 06/25/2012 8:15:50 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Some of the posters jumped to big time conclusions.
Even the governor is happy with the decision.


134 posted on 06/25/2012 8:16:07 AM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DNME
It’s my understanding that the federal government is expected to assist when a state needs help repelling an invasion.

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

135 posted on 06/25/2012 8:16:35 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

I wouldn’t expect Brewer NOT to claim victory.


136 posted on 06/25/2012 8:17:14 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

The States will have to file against the US government, force it to enforce the laws on the book.


137 posted on 06/25/2012 8:18:43 AM PDT by WellyP (question!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I know some of my Conservative brethren are looking for a silver lining here. The “papers please” provision being kinda sorta upheld means nothing. The substantive ruling is that Fed rights trump state’s rights. Not only is this a disaster for immigration, this is a HUGE disaster as it pertains to precedent for future “states right’s rulings”

We got beat and beat bad. And as long as we salve our feelings with those “news entertainment” idiots, we will NEVER know what is really going on.


138 posted on 06/25/2012 8:19:10 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

I think you’re absolutely correct.

People who are fed up with illegal (not legal!) aliens coming into this country and going on the dole will be furious come November (as long as the GOP campaign harps on the Fed (re: Obama) NOT doing their job).

If we lose this election, then we get what we deserve.

BTW, everyone should mention that legal immigrants get screwed by illegals by continuously getting pushed to the back of the bus, and never let the media or dems say you’re anti-immigrant. Get outraged, and tell them you are not anti-immigrant at all, but anti-ILLEGAL-alien!!!!


139 posted on 06/25/2012 8:19:56 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
More incentive to vote Obama OUT in order to get control of the border.

Bottom line.

Simply enforce federal law, and the problem ceases to exist.

140 posted on 06/25/2012 8:20:45 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: WellyP

that’s what I’ve been trying to figure out. How do the states get the feds to enforce the laws already on the books? That issue is what prompted Arizona to pass this law in the first place.


141 posted on 06/25/2012 8:20:45 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

I agree with you. So does Judge Napolitano.


142 posted on 06/25/2012 8:21:21 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

***STOP listening to ppl in “news entertainment”.***

Not doubting your expertise, but Jay Sekulow is not entertainment.


143 posted on 06/25/2012 8:23:51 AM PDT by Heart of Georgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
If we lose this election, then we get what we deserve.

This is always a dopey thing to say. It's a slogan substituting for thought.
144 posted on 06/25/2012 8:25:24 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: ziravan
If a State were to require EVERY citizen to get a work permit (which could be very pro forma, issued with drivers licences for example), and require everyone to provide a permit to work, that is not stepping on fed immigration law.

No, that would be a "civil rights" violation. /s

145 posted on 06/25/2012 8:25:37 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
It has always been the case that state law is subject to preemption by federal law... this is not new.

Article IV Clause II:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

THE issue is that the federal law is not being enforced by the federal government. That is not a issue for SCOTUS to decide or remedy in this case. That is why Arizona passed S1070 and that is the issue that needs to be resolved.

146 posted on 06/25/2012 8:26:36 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I see this as a victory for the most part. ALL of the Justices upheld that the police have the right to check the immigration status of those they stop..

It appears the only reason the other provisions were stuck down is because they encroached on existing Federal Law, and not because they're unconstitutional on their face.

147 posted on 06/25/2012 8:27:16 AM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

Scalia’s dissent makes clear how silly is any other opionion striking down the Arizona law. If the Constitution had a clause saying that Congress can pass immigration laws that the president can on personal whim enforce or not enforce, and that states are powerless to address, then Constitutional Convention would never have allowed that to pass.

It is insanity, and it is extremely troubling that Judge Roberts sided with the majority.

How in the world does it violate federal power for a state law to completely mirror the federal law but violate a presidential whim?

Arizona should put their national guard on their border against an imminent threat, a power reserved to them as Scalia pointed out.


148 posted on 06/25/2012 8:28:55 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: WellyP
From National Review:

Supreme Spin
By Mark Krikorian
June 25, 2012 10:59 A.M.

I’m in the delightful South Carolina low country, looking out at egrets in the marsh, and the kids are asking when we’re going into town — so I have more important things to do than hold forth at length on the Supreme Court’s Arizona decision. But the initial headlines on Twitter tell you something about the news sources. Reuters: “U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Tough Arizona Immigration Law, in Defeat for Obama”; Univision: “Supreme Court Strikes Down Most of Arizona Immigration Law.”

Reuters is right. Ask the man on the street what he thinks the Arizona law is about (whether he’s for it or against) and he’d say the requirement that police check legal status of people they encounter in lawful stops — and that’s the part that was upheld by the Court. The other three provisions that were challenged were preempted by federal law, according to the Court, but could you even name what those parts are? Making it a state misdemeanor for an illegal alien to apply for employment would be nice, for instance, but it’s not even a federal crime yet.

In any case, the core of the law was upheld, and will no doubt start being implemented. So let the next wave of lawsuits begin!

149 posted on 06/25/2012 8:29:51 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

You don’t know what you are talking about.

You have proven that with your statements re Zimmerman and your throwing around your prosecutor card.

Stop telling me what to do.

Jay Sekulow is not spin.

Goodby.


150 posted on 06/25/2012 8:30:12 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson