The Justice Department had maintained that the Arizona statute’s ban on smuggling illegal aliens while committing another crime — a provision targeting drug dealers — violates the Constitution’s assignment of the regulation of interstate commerce to the federal government. The federal interest in the unimpeded transport of drug runners and scouts across state lines, one must infer from the department’s brief, trumps a state’s interest in keeping drug dealing away from its residents.Only in Rotter Logik.
Straight out of Monty Python.
Ulululululu, says Rot.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
In reality, the reason that the law had to be enjoined preemptively was that it would not have produced a widespread trampling of rights. The hysteria around SB 1070 would have been shown to be gratuitous. That hysteria is a smokescreen to distract attention away from the real threat posed by SB 1070: not to the federal government’s constitutional powers, not to legal aliens, but to the de facto amnesty that now prevails in most of the country.
Again, precisely. But all that Rot can say when confronted with a tight, logical argument that destroys his cherished shibboleths, is trot out a limp non-sequitur. Duhhh.
McCarthy argues a subtle point with Mac Donald:
When a state’s lawful discretionary action conflicts with the president’s lawful discretionary decision not to enforce a congressional statute, that is not a legal issue. It is a political issue.
In such a situation, the job of the federal courts is to stay out of it. Then, in the court of public opinion, Arizona gets to demonstrate why illegal immigration is a huge problem, and the Obama administration can try to defend the de facto amnesty it seeks to confer on the illegal immigrant population. Indeed, it is only when the law throws back its veil and politics is allowed to operate, that we actually get to see that de facto amnesty is the president’s objective. That’s why the administration and its Justice Department want you to think of this as a legal case — if it’s politics, they lose . . . big.
Of course, this is beyond the realm of R-Logik.
McCarthy subtle! LOL!!
Point-by-point rebuttal of the highest order. Not.
Ditto.
Post a Comment