SI
SI
discoversearch

 Politics | Sioux Nation


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: SiouxPal4/26/2012 9:45:32 PM
2 Recommendations   of 255527
 

Antonin Scalia Will Make Sure Arizona Stays Fucking Insane:

The next time Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is scheduled to argue against a broad definition of states' rights at the Supreme Court, someone needs to kick him so hard in the crotch that he's doubled over in pain and tasting nut blood. For, indeed, he is a boob. As Dahlia Lithwick describes it, he's "a guy who brings a butter dish to a gunfight."

You can't understand the fucktarded nature of Verrilli's argument against Arizona's SB 1070, the "show us your papers" law that says anyone stopped for any violation, from murder to broken taillight, must prove he or she is a citizen or face detention until that determination can be made, until you read this exchange between Verrilli and Chief Justice John Roberts:

"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Before you get into what the case is about, I'd like to clear up at the outset what it's not about. No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it? I saw none of that in your brief.

"GENERAL VERRILLI: That's correct.

"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. So this is not a case about ethnic profiling.

"GENERAL VERRILLI: We're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case."

Aaaand...scene.

So, you got that? A case that is specifically about the racial profiling must not mention racial profiling and, instead, will be argued over whether or not the power to check immigration status belongs to the state or the federal government. Why? Well, perhaps because the law says the cops can't racially profile people. And, of course, we all know that because the law says they can't, they'd never do so. No, the law just says that the cops have to believe that a "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." No, no, that would never lead to any racial profiling.

Solicitor General Verrilli must not understand exactly who he's up against because the second this became about Arizona's right to police its own borders, he wasn't dealing with any rational way in which the law could be applied. No, he was dealing with Fox "news" rhetoric masked as jurisprudence. He was dealing Justice Antonin Scalia, a man who bends over a toilet when he's done taking a titanic shit and inhales deeply. And then he makes Justice Clarence "Uncle" Thomas do the same, and Thomas does, without saying a word, of course. Oh, Tony Scals. There's a dude who will certainly one day be found dead, having choked to death on his own jizz after contorting his bloated and broken body so he can suck his own cock.

Here's his big attack on the federal government's position on the enforcement of federal law by the states: "What's wrong about the States enforcing Federal law? There's a Federal law against robbing Federal banks. Can it be made a State crime to rob those banks? I think it is...does the Attorney General come in and say, you know, we might really only want to go after the professional bank robbers? If it's just an amateur bank robber, you know, we're -- we're going to let it go. And the State's interfering with our -- with our whole scheme here because it's prosecuting all these bank robbers."

Does that make a fucking bit of sense in the context of a state declaring that you can be asked to prove your citizen at any time a cop thinks there's reasonable suspicion to do so? Would he want the federal government to be able to do that? Of course he doesn't care. Because he's not going to be stopped. Because he won't look suspicious. Because of his goddamn race. Even if he robs a bank.

But if you want the fullest extent of Scalia's pure dickishness, look at how he taunted Verrilli later in the hearing:

"GENERAL VERRILLI: Now, we are not making an allegation of racial profiling. Nevertheless, there are already tens of thousands of stops that result in inquiries in Arizona, even in the absence of S.B. 1070. It stands to reason that the legislature thought that that wasn't sufficient and there needed to be more.

"And given that you have a population in Arizona of 2 million Latinos, of whom only 400,000 at most are there unlawfully

"JUSTICE SCALIA: Sounds like racial profiling to me."

A moment later, in response to another assertion by Verrilli, Scalia said, "What does this have to do with Federal immigration law? I mean, it may have to do with racial harassment, but I thought you weren't relying on that." That's right. A Supreme Court justice decided to have fun by fucking with an incompetent Solicitor General.

And why is that? Who decided how to argue this case and on what issues? Why can't the case have been argued on federal authority and 4th Amendment grounds? Or, really, is it just that the Supreme Court is so far gone that it doesn't matter?

// posted by Rude One @ 5:07 PM ShareThis





Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: SiouxPal who wrote (223602)4/26/2012 10:00:22 PM
From: SiouxPal
   of 255527
 

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Thursday easily passed legislation to renew the Violence Against Women Act for another four years, an issue that normally advances with little fanfare but has become a focal point amid election-year politicking.

The bill passed 68-31. Several Republicans sided with Democrats in passing the bill, including Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Dean Heller (Nev.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), John McCain (Ariz.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), David Vitter (La.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), whose name has been floated as a possible running mate for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, voted against the bill. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), whose name has also come up as a potential running mate, voted for it. Also of note is that Hutchison voted for the Democratic bill after authoring a GOP alternative to it.

Democrats hailed the bill's passage as a victory for women everywhere, especially because this year's renewal of the 1994 law includes new provisions to protect specific groups. The bill increases the number of visas available to victims of domestic violence who are undocumented immigrants, it bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender victims of domestic violence, and it gives more authority to Native American tribes to address domestic violence.

"Today, like each time we have reauthorized this bill before, we passed a better Violence Against Women Act," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a statement after the vote. "Expanding coverage for domestic violence should never have been controversial. Where a person lives, who they love, or what their citizenship status may be should not determine whether or not their perpetrators are brought to justice."

But those provisions have drawn opposition from Republicans. In the House, Republicans are pushing their own, significantly different VAWA bill and don't appear willing to swallow the Senate-passed package.

Asked Wednesday about the Senate bill's provisions targeting immigrants, Native Americans and the LGBT community, Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), the sponsor of the House GOP bill, said, "We're not going to be looking at the controversial issues that will detract from what is actually VAWA."

The issue of VAWA renewal comes at a time when both parties have been trying to win over women voters. President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have been hammering in the message that Republicans are waging a "war on women,"and will likely continue to do so through the November elections. Republicans have responded by criticizing Democrats for politicizing women's issues.

Still, Vice President Joe Biden, who sponsored the bill when he was a senator, tried to cast the measure as something beyond politics.

"The Senate's action today reaffirms that addressing this problem is bigger than politics," Biden said in a statement. "In 2012, we should be beyond questioning the need for the Violence Against Women Act."

By a vote of 36-63, the Senate defeated the Hutchison-sponsored GOP alternative to the VAWA bill. That proposal would have imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for aggravated sexual assault, granted subpoena power to U.S. marshals and taken a different approach to reducing a backlog in rape kit tests.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the sponsor of the Democratic VAWA bill, trashed the GOP proposal for stripping out protections for "battered" immigrants, Native Americans and members of the LGBT community.

"There is only one real Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. This is not it," he said of the GOP alternative. "It guts the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) was among those who voted against the bipartisan bill. He said his opposition should be seen as "a vote against big government and inefficient spending, and a vote in favor of state autonomy and local control."

"We must not allow a desire by some to score political points and an appetite for federal spending to prevent states and localities from efficiently and effectively serving women and other victims of domestic violence," he said in a statement.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Metacomet who wrote (223589)4/27/2012 5:43:19 AM
From: SiouxPal
   of 255527
 
Dear Colbert S. Uperpacmembers,

Spring is a time of renewal -- you can see it through our office windows, our windshields, and our televisions tuned to Nat Geo programs featuring hardcore animal humping. The next generation is being born. And the same is true in the world of Super PACs.

A few weeks ago, I unveiled the Colbert Super PAC Super Fun Pack, a limited-edition kit to help the next generation form Super PACs. Finally, college students could get their political voices heard on a national stage, not just at Thanksgiving Dinner where they get in a shouting match with Uncle Jack that makes Aunt Noreen cry.

Nation, I am proud to announce that all 1,000 Colbert Super PAC Super Fun Packs sold out in less time than it would take you to say "Colbert Super PAC Super Fun Pack," repeatedly for a week. And now, they've been delivered to college campii across the country.

Both presidential candidates have been making cheap attempts to pander to the youth, which merely comes off as fake, or "whack." They're too little, too late, while Colbert Super PAC is neither little nor late -- we're large and now. And with a thousand unaffiliated Super PAC tentacles stretching to colleges across this land, my power (like your student loan debts) will only grow.

Each kit features a decoder ring, secret clues, elaborate ciphers, and a map to find a hidden treasure. That treasure? A sense of accomplishment.

…and a 101-year-old sterling silver antique turtle which, when touched, makes a beautiful chime. It's far superior to a 101-year-old actual turtle that, when touched, gives you 101-year-old salmonella.

Whichever Super PAC Super Founder super-finds it first will also get a visit to their college campus by a man famous for his many television and email-newsletter appearances: Stephen T. Colbert.

So, lace up your treasure-hunting-shoes, because the game is afoot. Let the best man, woman, or corporation-legally-defined-a-person win.

Cryptically Yours,

Stephen Colbert
President and Chief Enigma Machinist
Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: SiouxPal who wrote (223605)4/27/2012 7:37:11 AM
From: T L Comiskey
   of 255527
 
Speaking of maps............................................

Mapping Stereotypes | Alphadesigner



Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: SiouxPal who wrote (223603)4/27/2012 8:03:40 AM
From: Metacomet
2 Recommendations   of 255527
 
Don't think they are really that stupid

I see a rope-a-dope in the making over this case

In the overall scheme of things, I hope to hell the Supreme Court upholds Arizona vile law

Just like the necessity to rub womens noses in the shit the GOP wants to force down their throats to get them to actually realize what is happening, so the Hispanics in this country need to realize exactly what the Taliban Republicans have in store for them as their power increases...

It may be a good idea to slam these blocs across their noses to keep them from voting for a clown like Rubio if he is Romneys choice...

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (223606)4/27/2012 9:19:05 AM
From: orthorodentialistica
   of 255527
 
This map will probably offend someone ;-D

i.imgur.com 

buzzfeed.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: orthorodentialistica who wrote (223608)4/27/2012 9:35:51 AM
From: T L Comiskey
   of 255527
 
:)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Ron4/27/2012 10:48:34 AM
3 Recommendations   of 255527
 
The Bush AWOL story. Dan Rather got much of it right. Too bad the media dropped the story to cover
the controversy instead:
alternet.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Ron who wrote (223610)4/27/2012 11:08:33 AM
From: T L Comiskey
   of 255527
 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Ron who wrote (223610)4/27/2012 12:33:35 PM
From: altair19
   of 255527
 
Ron

<The Bush AWOL story>

Bush would have been a dangerous guy to have in your unit.

Altair19

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.