This cracked me up:
NY Times- AZ Law Blocked!
AP- AZ Law Blocked!
CNN- AZ LAw Blocked
Col. Mustard and the wingnut chorus- Key Parts of AZ Law Upheld!
Reader Interactions
74Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
If you thought you’d already seen people saying the stupidest things possible on the internet, prepare yourselves.
We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.
Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.
Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.
Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.
You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.
This chaos was totally avoidable.
Republicans do not trust women.
My right to basic bodily autonomy is not on the table. that’s the new deal.
rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius
A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.
When they say they are pro-life, they do not mean yours.
“Alexa, change the president.”
We still have time to mess this up!
This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.
Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.
Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.
Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”
Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard
Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!
A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.
You are either for trump or for democracy. Pick one.
Narcissists are always shocked to discover other people have agency.
I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.
You are here: Home / Still Making Their Own Reality
SiubhanDuinne
And according to the WSJ, Tunch Is NOT Watching You.
Zifnab
Eternal optimism. That glass is definitely not half empty.
John Cole
@SiubhanDuinne: Even the WSJ article he quotes is in that picture calling it “BLOCKED”
Ash Can
Grasping at straws, chapter 38,583,67…aah, skip it.
Seriously, though, this made me feel much relieved, since IIRC this law was set to go into effect tomorrow.
licensed to kill time
Looking at the world through Mustard-smeared glasses….
BGinCHI
“Millions of New Yorkers Survive Attack on World Trade Center”
Scott
It’s not even “Key parts upheld” — some parts were upheld, but that’s enough for the wingers to declare Maximum Victory.
kommrade reproductive vigor
I’m surprised they aren’t screaming about the feds forcing Hispanics down ReaLAMErican throats. Perhaps they’ve gotten tired of being the victim?
Hee, I made a funny.
Mnemosyne
As you said yesterday, it’s the little guys who get hurt, and it’s the perfectly legal little guys in Arizona who are already getting their asses kicked by the reaction to the law.
Quaker in a Basement
Must’ve written that before Rush came on today. Mr. Limbaugh today advised listeners to respond to demands for identification with “No habla (sic) ingles!”
I so hope many hundreds of his listeners take this advice to heart.
me
So denial then. I suppose anger will headline “Activist Judges!”
BTD
Mostly a good decision with one serious exception that I discuss here.
That makes no sense and is actually a big loophole for Sheriff Joe to make a lot of mischief.
Bulworth
@me: That was the wingnut reaction I was expecting.
Jay in Oregon
Along the same lines, I came across this article with one of the best ledes ever:
Top Fox News sponsor Goldline under investigation by agencies local and federal for potential criminal practices. It turns out Glenn Beck–wait for it–may have been distorting news and history to sell you stuff.
Tip of the hat to The Bureau Chiefs.
Foobar
It does have that “FoxNews: Scotter Libby Found Not Guilty” quality that most subaru-driving lamestream media types miss.
balconesfault
Heh – I played on Mr. Jacobsons blog for awhile. Quit when I got put on “moderate”, despite that fact that I was extremely polite, never told people how stupid I thought they were, and always provided detailed links to support my positions.
They really don’t like to hear what they don’t like to hear.
Face
So did Activist Judge Communofacistnazi(TM) strike down, or allow, the part where Joe FatPack and his ilk can sue the municipalities that they think aren’t trying hard enough to kill more spics?
cfaller96
BREAKING: McCain/Palin 2008 Victory In Part – Jonah Goldberg’s Election Analysis Here (Update: Loses Overall Election)
LOL…
cfaller96
@balconesfault:
Sky blue, grass green, conservatives pathologically insecure and dishonest, etc.
Back when I valued my time less, I used to drop in on some conservablog that got mentioned once by The Moderate Voice. This was back when The Surge was still being debated, and The Man Called Petraeus was a freaking saint. I got, like, superbanned for simply posting a link to Petraeus’s own Counterinsurgency manual. It was surreal.
They have such a deepseated fear of having anybody be allowed to say almost anything.
MikeJ
@Scott:
It’s not really proper to say that any part was upheld, merely that they weren’t blocked. The judge hasn’t really ruled on anything yet, but parts of the law were potentially so bad they had to be blocked so they wouldn’t cause greater harm.
DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective
After a couple weeks of shitty news thanks to our potatohead friends on the right …
This decision is like a breath of fresh air.
Joe Arpaio today: “I won’t put up with civil disobedience.”
Great, our very own fucking Bull O’Connor. Would somebody please put a shaving cream pie in that bastard’s face?
Corner Stone
From Reuters:
Democrats tie Republicans to Tea Party agenda
Comrade Darkness
Their readers are crazy, so patronizing them is a GOOD thing.
Comrade Darkness
Their readers are crazy, so patronizing them is a GOOD thing.
Hal
Pundits at Fox News were positively, absolutely, sure this law wouldn’t be shot down in part or whole. Oh well.
Zifnab
@Corner Stone:
Careful, Tim. Your balls are showing.
DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective
@Zifnab:
Heh.
And yay.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Quaker in a Basement: I can’t wait to hear a caller tell Rush he got tasered after saying that.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective: Does that mean he’ll arrest all those RWNJ’s that will now protest the judge’s decision?
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@cfaller96: Why do you think most Conservative blogs don’t allow comments? Ross Douchehat used to have comments on his blog when he co-workers with McMegan. He disabled them after he was abused unmercifully for like 2 months straight.
gnomedad
@Jay in Oregon:
Reverse racism! They should be investigating the New Black Panthers! And ACORN! And Famous Amos!
Cacti
@Mnemosyne:
On top of that, Jan Brewer’s lies about the non-existent Mexican bandito crime epidemic is scaring the tourists away.
No tourism + no real estate boom = Arizona economy in a death spiral.
The bigots are willing to kill the state to stick it to the darkies.
Aet
@30, I thought the reason for no comments had to do with liability
in casewhen their lunatic followers did somethingQuaintIrene
Governor Brewer vows to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Great, more fucking wastes of time. I mean, the SC has all those birther cases to hear, right?
Elisabeth
To be fair, John, AP, CNN, and the NY Times all have a distinct librual bias so of course they’d try to spin this as a blow to conservative Americans-first policies.
QuaintIrene
Exactly! Why did he refuse to use white chocolate chips in his cookies??
El Cid
@Cacti: You’d think that tourists would be excited to see all those beheadings. It’s better than Medieval Times!
burnspbesq
@BTD:
Unfortunately, the quoted language seems to have been extremely carefully drafted to avoid a Commerce Clause challenge. I think the court got this right. Alas.
Incertus (Brian)
@Cacti: Florida’s got some real similarities to Arizona when it comes to the economy, as well as to the quality of our political crazies. Marco Rubio is every ounce the wingnut Brewer is, and so is McCollum. Crist is better than those two (though that’s a low bar to clear) and he got run from his own party.
suzanne
@DickSpudCouchPotatoDetective: Joe Arpaio today: “I won’t put up with civil disobedience.”
Great, our very own fucking Bull O’Connor. Would somebody please put a
shaving cream piehuge spiky tetanus-infested steel dildo in that bastard’sfaceass?Fixd.
demimondian
@BTD: It makes a great deal of sense. The language of the section speaks strictly to issues involved in facilitating illegal immigration. It doesn’t speak to immigration, legal or otherwise, but to other behaviors. That is well within the purview of a state to regulate.
Sheriff Joe may be able to make hay with it, but, in that case, enforcement can be enjoined after enactment on the basis of that trouble. That doesn’t make it unconstitutional, either.
Evil things can be constitutional. This is one of them.
El Cid
@suzanne: Of course, a big part of “civil disobedience” is being willing to be arrested and jailed over those acts.
Mnemosyne
@Cacti:
I really think that’s the true definition of bigotry: being willing to hurt yourself to prevent someone else from potentially advancing.
(Edited!)
suzanne
@El Cid: Aye. And considering what a boner that fucktard gets from locking up vulnerable people, I’m surprised he’s not begging for people to protest.
monkeyboy
In the contest our side came in second while our opponent was next to last.
BTD
@demimondian:
No, that simply is incorrect legal analysis.
It is completely contradictory to the legal holdings in the same opinion, and is in conflict with Hines, the principal case the decision relies upon.
This is not a conflict preemption case, it is a field preemption case.
This reasoning simply can not be squared with the rest of the opinion. IT makes no sense.
The 9th Circuit will either reverse the rest of the opinion or this part of the opinion. Both can not stand.
BTD
@burnspbesq:
The Commerce Clause is not the issue, the field preemption argument is the issue.
The discussion is utterly inconsistent with the rest of the opinion.
I am sure the Justice Dep’t will appeal this part if Arizona appeals, which they surely will.
burnspbesq
@demimondian:
Bingo. In order to see a Commerce Clause issue there, you have to believe that Gonzalez v. Raich was correctly decided. I don’t think BTD wants to go there. Or maybe he does.
burnspbesq
@BTD:
I’ll play along just for giggles. And note that I haven’t read the DOJ briefs.
In your view, what Federal statute pre-empts?
Zandar
You shoulda seen what Col. Mustard actually spouted. It’s classic:
The most controversial and unconstitutional part of the law gets struck down because of the patently ridiculous and unenforceable burden on Arizona’s cops as to what constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” of a person being in the country illegally, without that suspicion being able to be applied in any sane or reasonably consistent way short of A) racial profiling, B) asking everybody for documentation, also stuck down, or C) the person wearing a t-shirt that reads “Undocumented and proud of it” while dragging an unconscious Border Patrol agent around behind them, and the law professor finds it a “surprise”.
This guy? Awesome.
BTD
@burnspbesq:
Gonzales v Raich was of course correctly decided. I can’t imagine a serious person saying otherwise.
suzanne
Among other reasons I’m thrilled about this injunction, I’m so excited that this drives the JournoList whining into hiding. (Except on Pandagon, where Amanda Marcotte just can’t let go of her victim complex.)
Cacti
FYI, the best local source for info on SB 1070, Joe Arpaio, and the Arizona wingnut cadre is the Feathered Bastard at the New Times.
BTD
@burnspbesq:
The federal regulatory regime on immigration and immigration law enforcement.
Have you actually read the opinion? Have you read the Hines case? I pass on the rest of the discussion.
Mark S.
@Zandar:
Col. Mustard doesn’t really strike me as the greatest legal mind since Learned Hand. I don’t get the impression that he understands what a preliminary injunction even is.
General Stuck
@Mark S.:
So the dude at legal insurrection is Colonel Mustard. I’ve heard that term but didn’t know who it referred to till now.
But the guy is a moron. The one time I ever commented on his blog, which I hardly ever do on any winger blogs these days, was to argue his assertion during the HCR debate, that using reconciliation on a piece of legislation had never been done before. I politely informed him of the welfare reform bill the goopers did that way, and a couple of tinkerings with medicare. He himmed and hawwed for several comments then just disappeared into the ethers.
burnspbesq
@BTD:
Fuck you. “Consistent with existing precedent” is not the same thing as “correctly decided.” Gonzalez v. Raich is wrong for all the same reasons that Wickard v. Filburn was wrong.
Davis X. Machina
@General Stuck: The very Bush tax cuts whose fate hang in the balance were passed by reconciliation….
Bella Q
@burnspbesq: I noticed that rather, ah, precise drafting as well.
burnspbesq
@BTD:
And Brave Sir BTD runs away before I can ask him why he disagrees with the court’s conclusion that De Canas is the controlling precedent on the pre-emption issue. Darn. I was looking forward to that.
General Stuck
@Davis X. Machina: Well, he like the other wingnuts at the time were arguing those tax cuts didn’t count because they were not actual legislation and only budgetary, or some such horseshit. I just pointed out that even their fallback phony reason was also too phony.
burnspbesq
@Bella Q:
Good lawyering in the service of a bad idea.
Wutchagonnado?
Bella Q
@burnspbesq: Worth noting, as a reminder that some of the misguided (from my view) folks are actually bright enough to be good lawyers. Sigh.
Of course there are always the true believers, a category I suspect includes BTD. Going out on a limb based on his last couple of comments…
BTD
@burnspbesq:
I’ll bite- what in De Canas supports the decision? All De Canas says is that state laws (like say those against murder) apply to undocumented aliens.
Having a GENERAL law apply to everyone is not this case. This is a specific law that criminalizes TRNASPORTING (to wit, driving them in your car) an undocumented alien. Obviously the intent is of the upheld provision of AZ SB 1070 is to have state law enforcement authorities enforce federal immigration laws, which impinges on federal authority.
Just ask yourself one question – how does Arizona prove that you were transporting an undocumented alien? Better yet, how does it get “reasonable suspicion” that you are transporting an undocumented alien? The court struck down the requirement that a DRIVER has to have proof of legal residency but, implicitly, it upheld a law that requires PASSENGERS to have proof of legal residency.
This is in conflict with Hines. It is in conflict with the rest of the opinion. The ruling makes no sense.
BTD
@burnspbesq:
Well, Wickard v. Fillburn was correctly decided in my view.
I thought this had become a progressive blog. I did not know that the commenters adhered to the Constitution in Exile view.
BTD
@Bella Q:
True believers in field preemption? Well, yes, I plead guilty.
I did not realize field preemption was considered extremist by some of you.
BTD
@demimondian:
That is a distinction without a difference. You write “involved in facilitating illegal immigration. It doesn’t speak to immigration, legal or otherwise, but to other behavior.”
You yourself say it speaks to “facilitating illegal immigration.” This is subject to a comprehensive federal regime that occupies the field. Thus, field preemption applies.
Bella Q
Well, as you have no doubt figured out, there are at least 2 of us here who find the broad sweep of the Commerce Clause as enunciated first in Wilard v. Fickburn and again in Gonzales v. Raich to be excessive. And Raich was wrongly decided for the same reason Fickburn was – some things should be beyond federal reach, and personal use cultivation of wheat and (medical) marijuana strike me as good examples.
Bella Q
@burnspbesq:
As was I. So much for turning the thread into a spirited preemption debate. Seemed pretty clear to me it’s a conflict issue and that De Canas controls. And I don’t see a contradiction with Hines.. But then, it’s not exactly my area of constitutional focus either.
And I see I couldn’t even type case names correctly above. I know it should be Wickard v. Filburn, but when I do the dyslexic typing thing and copy and paste it inside a post, that’s what you get to read.
b-psycho
@Bella Q: 3rd!
BTD
@Bella Q:
Burkean Bells.
Xanthippas
You know, where are the thousands of blog posts examining the judge’s investments and impugning his credibility and integrity? Oh sorry…we lefties agree with the decision, so none of that’s necessary.
burnspbesq
@BTD:
That’s a completely disingenuous description of the holding in De Canas. Shame on you.
The statute at issue in De Canas, California Labor Code Section 2805(a), prohibited employers from hiring aliens not lawfully admitted for permanent residence (i.e., non-green card holders) if such employment would have an adverse impact on lawful resident workers.
Here is what the Supreme Court said in De Canas about the pre-emption issue:
De Canas, 424 U.S. 351, 355 (1976) (emphasis added).
The District Court opinion in U.S. v. Arizona does not quote as extensively from De Canas as I have done above; if it had, it would be easier to understand why the court found De Canas to be applicable to section 2929. The United States’ argument is a lame non sequitur, and at the preliminary injunction stage, where the United States has to demonstrate probable success on the merits, the combination of a proper reading of De Canas and the United States’ poor job of explaining itself amply justifies the holding.
burnspbesq
@BTD:
Someday, when we have a full trial record, you might be right about that. It might be the case that as applied in the field by the cops in Arizona, section 2929 satisfies the Hines test of impermissible interference with the federal statutory scheme. But at the preliminary injunction stage, the United States has nothing that it can point to that adds up to probable success on the merits.
Process matters. Where you are in the life cycle of a case matters.