Impeach the SCOTUS

[johnny watt]

Those brain dead political hacks on the bench, struck down the Arizona law under the premise that the law usurps the federal government authority to set immigration policy. How does that make sense to anyone that is not a brain dead drooling librul? Would a state be allowed to resist a foreign army invasion or execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion, under this irrational ruling of the SCOTUS?

Are commerce laws and civil rights laws okay to pass and enforce by the states? Or is that stepping on the feds toes too?

FTR…Arizona was not setting immigration policy they were trying to enforce federal policy. They did not claim to have the power to grant US citizenship or to rescind it. In fact they were only concerned with immigration into their state alone, so the Feds could still chose not to enforce the immigration law in the other 56 states.

I wonder if there is any state right that exists in the eyes of a SCOTUS.

It is high time to impeach the SCOTUS and the POTUS and frog march Holder for contempt.

[MarkMc]

That from a moderate... the righter wingers must be experiencing an extreme apoplectic attack!

[parkwest]

Actually there are 58 states. Obama has only visited 57 with one more to go.

I say we ship the 47 million people who are on food stamps to Mexico and tell them those people are now their problem.

But the best solution is to send Mexico a bill for the US taxpayer's cost of taking care of Mexico's citizens... maybe put some liens on Mexico's oilfields???

[Johnson]

That from a moderate... the righter wingers must be experiencing an extreme apoplectic attack!

What, specifically is extreme about what Johnny Watt said? How is it extreme for AZ to want to enforce already existing laws? Wouldn't it be extreme to not allow a state to enforce already existing laws?

[MarkMc]

What, specifically is extreme about what Johnny Watt said? How is it extreme for AZ to want to enforce already existing laws? Wouldn't it be extreme to not allow a state to enforce already existing laws?

You did read what was and wasn't struck down on Monday's delivery didn't you? Oh, never mind it's quite obvious you didn't...

[Johnson]

You did read what was and wasn't struck down on Monday's delivery didn't you? Oh, never mind it's quite obvious you didn't...

You said what Johnny said was extreme. What is extreme?

[MarkMc]

You said what Johnny said was extreme. What is extreme?

Gee, I just spent the best part of the last week trying to find where I said that. I'd ask you to point it out Steve, but...

[johnny watt]

I probably misspoken somewhere because I am not a moderate, I am a centrist.

It is imperative that we throw the ultra left winger inJustices, who struck down AZ's law, off the SCOTUS, and replace them with centrist justices who are like minded to the Justices who rightly upheld AZ’s law.

[MarkMc]

So the ones you agree with are ok to stay then?

Scalia, Thomas and Alito each filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part; can they be subdivided, like cutting off the left arms or something? Then you have the conflict of having to subdivide agin based on J Bopp v Real People [aka American Tradition Partners, Inc v Bullock].

...and fair warning; they're gonna be coming for your guns again. This time in Utah where due to their very liberal gun regulations it strongly appears that at least 19 forest fires have been started by yahoos 'target' shooting this fire season. 19. Some large, and all at a cost to taxpayers, to Citizens. Why should we subsidize that activity?