He was my president as much as Trump is. Don't really care for either.
If my kid said "the kid down the street did it first" , I'd thump them in the head.
If my kid said "the kid down the street did it first" , I'd thump them in the head.
Well, you're not going to thump me in the head, so let's discuss the fact you agreed with obama's illegal acts regarding illegal immigration.
A quote from an interesting piece about Snow and Joe. Sorry for the typos, I am just copying it.
"Judge Snow’s wife said in a public restaurant, very clearly, “Judge Snow wanted to do everything to make sure” that Sheriff Arpaio (was) not elected. Neither Judge Snow nor his wife has ever denied the statement."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...ive-a-fair-hearing-from-an-unbiased-judge.php
"Judge Snow’s wife said in a public restaurant, very clearly, “Judge Snow wanted to do everything to make sure” that Sheriff Arpaio (was) not elected. Neither Judge Snow nor his wife has ever denied the statement."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...ive-a-fair-hearing-from-an-unbiased-judge.php
So it's okay that Trump can stomp on our Constitution because Obama did it?
Where has Trump stepped on the Constitution? I have a list of obama's violations ready at your response.
That's because they are more concerned with getting a result than they are with principles. They don't realize that their lack of principles is short-sighted and will be used against them later. Sure, every now and again, somebody--usually one of us "lying liberals" will point out that the power we give the Republicans today will be in the hands of Democrats tomorrow, but they fail to grasp the significance of that (and, when we point out the converse to leftists, it falls on similarly deaf ears). It's like they lack the capability for long-term thinking.
You want to focus on the law, but your defense of Trump is to say "Obama was worse?" It's like you can't even read your own words.
No, I don't agree with what the Obama administration did. Plain and simple. Now that we've put that issue to bed, give me a legal argument for why what Sheriff Arpaio did was correct. Keep in mind my previous statements (properly supported) about the law: that the Constitution vests authority for immigration solely in the hands of the feds; that illegal immigration--by statute--is typically a civil matter, not a criminal one; that the injunction specifically held that there is no inherent authority for local law enforcement to enforce the civil provisions of federal law; that the courts have ruled that anybody within the borders of the United States enjoys the protections of most of the Bill of Rights (notably the Fourth Amendment); that this case started with someone who was here legally; that many people here legally, including citizens, were swept up in Arpaio's nets; that Arpaio willfully and repeatedly violated the injunction, and did so blatantly, even making his outright defiance of the rule of law a campaign point; and that he had plenty of warning of his violation, having been found guilty of civil contempt twice, by two other judges (making a total of three judges finding him contemptuous--which, again, he publicly trumpeted).
BTW, I'll throw in one more: it seems to me that there was an Arizona (i.e. state) law that allowed for such local enforcement. Such a law is facially invalid: Article VI, Section 2 (the supremacy clause) states clearly that the US Constitution (and laws passed pursuant thereto) are the "supreme law of the land...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Given that the field of immigration is vested entirely in the feds (as are many other things--foreign policy, bankrputcy, copyrights and patents, etc.), Arizona has no authority to pass such a law.
Again, your ability to "focus on the law" is the stuff of legend.
So...let's try focusing on the law, and you tell us why all of the courts--all four of them--were wrong. And keep the "but he did it too!" BS on the third-grade playground where it belongs.
Your like an old record, as soon as you want someone to agree with you, its look mom I am so smart and a lawyer.
Just because you are a lawyer does not make you correct.
Just because you are a lawyer does not make you correct.
Fine. Prove me wrong. I already invited that upthread. Show me where anything I've said is false, and I'll say here--in large, bold print--that you were right and I was wrong.
It does not matter, the President has pardon authority. All most of us are saying is we agree with the pardon.
Even the members that are saying they agree with the sheriff for trying to enforce federal law, are saying it was in response to Obama not enforcing the law. In our nation, there is a growing frustration with the legal system, because it is becoming politically active. You keep arguing about what the law says, black and white. When most of us know that many judges are interpreting what the law means.
Similar threads
