Exactly. I don't think they have an knowledge of a the supreme court being willing to back these things--maybe hopes, but nothing more.

They're just pandering to their constituency that has a majority supporting these types of bills in these states. If they get struck down by the Supreme Court, they still have the political capital with their constituents for passing the laws, and can use them being struck down to rile up their bible thumpin' redneck base into an even more heated anti-federal government fervor.

Then we get to hear "Blah blah activist judges blah blah".

Yep. It's a no-lose proposition for republican legislators in conservative states.

Pass a bill their conservative base supports and get credit for it. If it's upheld, great for them. If not, they raise the rabble with the activist judge rhetoric.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us...w.html?_r=1&hp

Supreme Court upheld the "show me your papers" part of the law, but blocked other parts of it, saying other parts overstepped things that were federal issues.

Good lord I posted in this thread two years ago.

I miss foc, he was a sarcastic SOB.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by dmaul1114 bible thumpin.

I am so glad you bumped the thread as I never saw this thread and I am "blessed" to see such comments as this by you. "bible thumping"? Really? wow!

I am just in shock by these type of comments. The hypocrisy in that alone is disturbing. I guess there is only left and right, religious and not religious, black and not black. The ignorance of that statement is just sickening.

I hope that you are under the voting age with that kind of ignorance of the world let alone politics, demographics and human nature.

I guess democrats don't "bible thump"? You might want to familrize yourself with who votes democrat and what that base consists of....as just a starter.

Wow just wow

I would like to point out that I am pretty far from a "bible thumper"...have been to church maybe 20 times in the last 12 years...but I am still massively in support of moves like this. As Scalia said in his dissent, the federal government continues to drag its feet when it comes to better protecting our borders and enforcing immigration law. I fully support states, especially one like Arizona that bears a huge brunt of the illegal immigration problems, combating this anyway that they can.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19497994

A US federal judge has ruled Arizona officials can enforce a controversial provision and demand to check the immigration status of suspects.... ...However, as part of a split ruling, she granted a preliminary injunction against a statute making it illegal to transport, harbour or shield individuals suspected of being in the country illegally within Arizona's borders.

I'm confused. Does this mean if you have an actual citizen (or someone with the right to be here some other way) who is a suspect because they didn't have proof with them, you're committing a crime?

the injunction is against making that illegal - so it can't be enforced that way right now, but yes, that was the intent.