Lost One!

Up Yours Eric! In your face Janet! F*ck you Barack!

Most recently, the Obama administration decided to challenge the 2007 Arizona immigration law and has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the provision. But what is a little known fact to most Americans is that it was <Supreme Court Justice and Former Solicitor General> Kagan who was the originator and driving force behind the Obama administration’s decision to ask the Court to overturn the Arizona immigration law. Kagan recently admitted as much in required disclosures to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Told you see was a political appointee, an apparatchik, a stooge.

The administration argued that Arizona’s law revoking the business licenses of businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants is unconstitutional. But this argument is completely baseless as the two lower courts already confirmed.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona’s law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.

By a 5-3 vote, the court said Thursday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

The decision upholding the validity of the 2007 law comes as the state is appealing a ruling that blocked key components of a second, more controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law. Thursday’s decision applies only to business licenses and does not signal how the high court might rule if the other law comes before it.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the Arizona’s employer sanctions law “falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states.”

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general.

Breyer said the Arizona law upsets a balance in federal law between dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because they may speak with an accent or look like they might be immigrants.

Employers “will hesitate to hire those they fear will turn out to lack the right to work in the United States,” he said.

When ICE does engage in worksite enforcement actions, it allows the illegal workers simply to walk down the street to the next employer to seek employment.  If the federal government is abdicating its responsibility to enforce our immigrations laws, how can the administration protest when individual states seek to protect their residents?

Business interests and civil liberties groups challenged the law, backed by the Obama administration.

The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now the administration’s Homeland Security secretary.

The employer sanctions law has been only infrequently used. It was intended to diminish Arizona’s role as the nation’s hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. Employers found to have violated the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked.

Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously upheld the law.

The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 09-115.

Even more so, the American people deserve to have Supreme Court decisions rendered by justices who adhere to the Constitution, not politics.

But that’s not how Liberals work. And it sure as hell isn’t how Barack & Co work.

By Any Means Necessary

The most liberal court in the land has struck again. The Ninth Circus Court of Liberal Appeals has ruled that you’d don’t have to prove you’re a citizen to vote!

The very law they upheld and has been on the books for 6 years they tossed out the week before the election where liberals are going to get creamed.

Coincidence? Not with Liberals.

And this same circus is going to take up SB 1070 next week also.

Can you say the liberal fix is in!

And guess who’s helping them out, Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Anyone for revoking anything with her name on it?

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.

The court did uphold Arizona’s photo ID requirement. So all the Illegals need is their fake IDs to vote for Democrats. Gee, that makes me feel so much better!

A three-judge panel of the court said the proof-of- citizenship requirement conflicted with the intent of the federal law aiming to increase voter registration by streamlining the process with a single form and removing state- imposed obstacles to registration.

The federal law requires applicants to “attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury” without requiring documentary proof, the panel said.

“Proposition 200 creates an additional state hurdle to registration,” the judges said.

The law was challenged by voting rights and Hispanic advocacy groups.

The decision is “a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation” that the Constitution “will protect our democratic process,” Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a San Antonio-based group that argued the case, said in a statement.

So I guess if you want to intimidate voters you’d better be black and liberal so Eric Holder & Co will not prosecute you or else!!

To protect the integrity of the democratic process we have to protect the illegal voters if they want to vote for Democrats.

So a State law that “supersedes” and “goes beyond” Federal Law is struck down. Gee, that argument sounds familiar somehow? 😦

Perales (MALDEF Lawyer) compared Proposition 200 to the oft-called SB 1040, a controversial Arizona law that allows police to ask the immigration status of people stopped for other reasons, which critics call racial profiling.

“Basically, you have a state law superseding federal law,” she said of 1040. “Arizona is creating an independent scheme, whether it’s immigration or voter registration, in violation of known law.”(SA.com)

The dingbat liberals can’t even get their facts straight! It’s SB1070 you progressive liberal twit!!

“Once again, we have activist judges ignoring the rule of law and the voters, that is citizens, they apparently are ok with illegal votes or non-citizens voting. This absolutely flies in the face of common sense,” says Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa the author of Proposition 200 in 2004.

“The Justice Department gave Proposition a thumbs up and found no conflict with the voting rights act.  I also had 7 court rulings, including a 9th Circuit Court all upholding the law just 3 years ago. Judge O’Connor has also violated the canons about political activity when she did a robo call in Nevada on the Proposition to merit select of Judges, apparently another example of her lack of trust and respect of We The People.

So now, in the age of Obama and Eric “Social Justice” Holder we just toss out or legal precedent and go with what works for our ideology now.

Gee, that make me feel so much better about the courts.

“So what is the message from these judges? If an illegal alien is trying to register to vote, it is okay to ask them if they are a citizen, just don’t make them prove it. You have got to be kidding!” says Sen. Pearce.

Danny Ortega, a Phoenix attorney who helped challenge Proposition 200 on behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. “It will protect their right (the poor) to vote. That’s what this is all about.”

Where’s my Barf Bag!??

So do you think Eric Holder’s Social Justice Dept will use this against Arizona next week when they come after us again?

Oh, and On Dec. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear appeals against Arizona’s 2007 employer-sanctions law, which prohibits employers from knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

Employer sanctions was something the President himself has advocated for,at least in public when it suited him politically. Not so much now.

Do you think this was coincidence? 🙂

Don’t you feel better now? 🙂

So by the end of the year Illegal Aliens could have more rights than you do.

Why More?

Because, if you try to stop them from doing anything illegal that benefits the Progressive Liberal Agenda the courts and the Social Justice Police will be there to STOP YOU.

You evil, disenfranchising racist you! How dare you want them to follow the law.

Shame on you!

Go to the Back of the bus!! 🙂