It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama wants Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
It really depends on who's in charge. Since calderon while visiting the US felt the need to slam the great state of Arizona and our fearless leader obama agreed with him. I just wonder if this isn't calderon pulling the strings.

What does that have to do with separation of powers, which was the entire subject of my post?

Also, you really think the President of Mexico has any power over the President of the United States? I'd be interested how that works.

[edit on 5/30/2010 by LifeInDeath]




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I believe that the anything the President sends to the Supreme court, the Executive Branch of the Federal government better have its ducks in a row. Something tells me that the Justices that sit on the bench may just hold a bit of grudge and would rule in favore of the states for a bit, if anything but to stall the President and all those who support him.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by Chance321
It really depends on who's in charge. Since calderon while visiting the US felt the need to slam the great state of Arizona and our fearless leader obama agreed with him. I just wonder if this isn't calderon pulling the strings.

What does that have to do with separation of powers, which was the entire subject of my post?

Also, you really think the President of Mexico has any power over the President of the United States? I'd be interested how that works.

[edit on 5/30/2010 by LifeInDeath]



And I thought my post was simple enough. when we have calderon slamming one of our states and obama right beside him agreeing I'd take as them being on the same page on how our country should be directed.
The separation of powers? Look at all the strong arming and bribes obama did for health care, you don't think he wouldn't try strong arming the Supreme Court (which I feel/hope'll blow up in his face) if calderon said he should.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Actually I don't hate unions. I have worked in this uber-agency-in 2 seperate departments and have seen the icompetent morons and people whom lied to get thier jobs threaten legal/union action when pressed to the wall and invariably the agencies back down. This helps no one and is inherently dangerous. If the federal unions would actually look at the complaints and accusations as provided and the evidence and DO the right thing, instead of strong-arming agencies to keep wholly inept people's jobs and thier dues running, I wouldn't have a problem. I have no problem with the right to unionize in general, unfortunatley the bulk of them have gotten so use to the bullying and strong arm tactics used in the 20th century(read when mob-controlled) that any legitimacy the may once have had, has disappeared. How does protecting people who legitamately do not belong in a job or lied about credentials tp attain a position help anyone other than membership rolls for the federal union?

[edit on 31-5-2010 by djvexd]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Just wanted to correct this:

standing = injury, causation, redressability

I was tired & just did spell check, which doesn't recognize "redressability."

[edit on 31-5-2010 by someotherguy]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
In what way is a request or recommendation from the President a separation of powers issue? The Obama Administration would like the Supreme Court to review the law and has stated so. They do not have the power to force them to, and have not tried to claim or exert such a false power to do so. Where is the problem in what they have said?


Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) tells us:


There are three ways a case can be heard in the Supreme Court: (1) filing directly in the Supreme Court; (2) filing in a lower federal court, such as a district court, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court; (3) filing in a state court, appealing all the way up through the state's highest courts, and then appealing to the Supreme Court on an issue of federal law.

en.wikipedia.org...


Bottom line: Obama can ask the Supreme Court to review the AZ law all he wants, but they have no power to do so until someone with standing brings a case that challenges it.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by someotherguy]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by someotherguy
 

Excellent find.
I looked last night, but just couldn't think it through straight, That happens when you get old.
Great Find.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Actually I don't hate unions. I have worked in this uber-agency-in 2 seperate departments and have seen the icompetent morons and people whom lied to get thier jobs threaten legal/union action when pressed to the wall and invariably the agencies back down. This helps no one and is inherently dangerous. If the federal unions would actually look at the complaints and accusations as provided and the evidence and DO the right thing, instead of strong-arming agencies to keep wholly inept people's jobs and thier dues running, I wouldn't have a problem. I have no problem with the right to unionize in general, unfortunatley the bulk of them have gotten so use to the bullying and strong arm tactics used in the 20th century(read when mob-controlled) that any legitimacy the may once have had, has disappeared. How does protecting people who legitamately do not belong in a job or lied about credentials tp attain a position help anyone other than membership rolls for the federal union?

[edit on 31-5-2010 by djvexd]


So federal agencies and/or departments are victims of unions? Isn't it the responsibility of the government to hire the correct people by doing background checks? When you apply for any job you always present a resume, go to an interview and management decides if your qualified or not.....its no different in the public sector!

Blaming unions is a cop-out especially in the case of DHS which greatly consolidated government oversight. I am MUCH MORE CONCERNED about DHS becoming the next cia/nsa with no accountability to anyone, then workers abusing their rights.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
The problem with the whole DHS merger is that they dident really merge.

Customs, Immigration, and Border Patrol are still basically seperate agencies with their own command organization, rank structures, uniforms, etc. What we need is a single unified Customs & Immigration Service where one job title can do all 3 jobs.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
What "Big Brother" wants, "Big Brother" gets...



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
 


Its a cop out. He's confronted with massive approval for the AZ bill and does not want to go against that, but he still has to play to his leftist base and the hispanic voters. He's punting and then can blame the court regardless of the outcome.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Pathetic, isn't it?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
 


Pathetic not only because of the cowardice of the tactic, but also the naked transparency of it. This is the kind of political move you'd expect from studentbody president, not POTUS.

Goes to show that the internal numbers he's getting are really weak. Also goes to show what happens when you promise the extreme of your party, right or left a ton of things that run counter to what the majority of the folks really want.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
And I thought my post was simple enough. when we have calderon slamming one of our states and obama right beside him agreeing I'd take as them being on the same page on how our country should be directed.
The separation of powers? Look at all the strong arming and bribes obama did for health care, you don't think he wouldn't try strong arming the Supreme Court (which I feel/hope'll blow up in his face) if calderon said he should.

Whatever politicking was done during the health care debate was just that, politicking. That's how business gets done in Washington, that's how it has always been done in Washington since even before the founding of America (before there was a Washington and it was done in Philadelphia). In fact, that's HOW things got done to convince members of the Continental Congress to sign the Declaration of Independence and later to get the various states to sign on to the Constitution. You are naive if you think otherwise.

If Calderon says Obama 'should' do something, he'll listen to what Calderon says, then make a decision as to what he thinks is best for America. You make it sound like he's Calderon's lap dog, but believe me he's not. Whatever statements Obama has made on the Arizona law or agreed with that others have made, it's because it's what he thinks is either right or, perhaps, politically better for him. You can take it either way, but he's the President of the U.S. and no President of a third rate power is going to push him around. It's just not the way it goes.


Originally posted by someotherguy
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) tells us:


There are three ways a case can be heard in the Supreme Court: (1) filing directly in the Supreme Court; (2) filing in a lower federal court, such as a district court, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court; (3) filing in a state court, appealing all the way up through the state's highest courts, and then appealing to the Supreme Court on an issue of federal law.

en.wikipedia.org...


Bottom line: Obama can ask the Supreme Court to review the AZ law all he wants, but they have no power to do so until someone with standing brings a case that challenges it.

Yes, this. Thank you.

[edit on 6/1/2010 by LifeInDeath]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join