Here's a good ASL one:
(right-click and check "Properties" for what the sign means)
Posted on 06/27/2012 11:48:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I guess even Justice Scalia doesn’t have freedom of speech, eh, E.J.?
Because an assassination could easily change the balance of the court depending on who is POTUS.
It doesn’t have to be POTUS level protection but at least something greater than they have now. I was unaware of marshal protection.
Where in hell did he get a crazy idea like that?............
Here's a good ASL one:
(right-click and check "Properties" for what the sign means)
LMFAO! Boy, that’s a real knee slapper, E.J., you should be a ****ing comedian.
So Scalia commenting on how things are, or are not, Constitutional is considered being a politician? He was chosen for the Supremes because he’s a smart man, who actually THINKS about the Constitutionality of laws. I can’t see why on earth that would be a problem, but then, I don’t look at life through a radical liberal lens.
The left, as represented in this case by EJ Dionne, want to preempt the inevitable decision by SCOTUS to overturn all or part of 0bamacare by personalizing its attacks on the Justices and their principled interpretations of the law. Whatever Justice Scalia says is far more interesting and correct in its interpretation of the Constitution than any noise from EJ Dionne. What a loser.
A sad commentary on life and ethics in our country.
Although I agree with what Scalia said, I “concur” with Dionne partially. I worry that Scalia’s mouthing off about current events may result in his having to recuse himself in a forthcoming case about immigration.
I thought the Italian hand gesture was the fingers under the chin flicked forward. That picture looks more like the “Darn...I could have had a V8” gesture.
I am so angry at this write up in the Washington Post. I tried to put my comment in, but their system is having problems and won’t let me post.
Grrr... I want to post!
Since I can’t - here it is!
I think you have a problem! The President took an oath of office that was to protect and defend its citizens. He has become a President that decides which laws he will and will not obey. If you have a President that can just say we will ignore illegal entry into our country and then also give them preferential treatment, then you are breaking the law. If you agree with him, then you are an idiot!
Immigrants (legal) should be given preferential treatment. Illegal - no matter how they got here, should not be brought to the front of the line. Especially when you are talking about 800,000 to 1.3 million people. This is not fair to those legal immigrants that have waited to become citizens. Once these legal immigrants become citizens, then they have the right to bring their family here as well to begin the process of citizenship.
Our President has decided to break the law and grant people who illegally cross more rights than it’s own citizens which should be condemned. I agree with Justice Scalia in his anger towards this corrupt government! E.J. Dionne Jr. you should be ashamed at yourself for going after a man who has the integrity to state it how it is.
Uhh, not that one. I think the call was for the Italian Salute, right arm extended, left hand slapped firmly on top of the elbow of extended right arm.
Usually executed with the expression “Ba fongul”or “bafungul”
which means in Italian just what you think it means.
EJ Dionne needs to go play in rush hour traffic.
E.J. Dionne, a man on a mission to prove that brainwaves are not necessary to write for the WaPo.Good one.
Scalia’s argument is not a political argument it is a constitutional argument. The Arizona ruling was conditioned on the idea that the requirement to protect the borders is a federal duty not a state duty and the state must therefore yield to the federal government. But that argument assumes the federal government will uphold the law. Scalia was pointing out that that the argument of federal supremacy does not make sense when the federal government willingly fails in it’s duty. Are the states and the people to be left defenseless against roving bands of invaders if the occupant of the white house sees some political advantage in allowing such raids? The correct constitutional position that sovereign states must yield to federal execution of the laws protecting the border but have every right to establish laws that protect their people when the federal government refuses to act. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30. If an individual unlawfully present in the United States . . . [under specified conditions] then U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defe[r] action” against such individual “for a period of two years, subject to renewal.”6 The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the nonenforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.Justice Scalia's comments on President Obama'sThe Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror—“[i]f §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
. . . .
As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment.
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent. (Emphasis added, internal citations omitted.)
I wrote about the decision here, noting that the Majority Opinion also commented that the illegal alien problem Arizona faces is quite different and worse than faced by other states, yet the Executive Branch has chosen to focus its efforts elsewhere.
E.J. Dionne, a man on a mission to prove that brainwaves are not necessary to write for the WaPo.Good one.
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.