[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Judge Blocks Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law PHOENIX (AP) -- A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown. The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents - including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put those controversial sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling and is trumped by federal immigration law. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36. This judge was a Klintoon nominee, enough said. We need to start disbarment against these judges and half the Supreme Court.
#21. To: reaganisright (#1) We need to start disbarment against these judges and half the Supreme Court. Yup,although you can't disbar or remove a sitting judge from the SC unless you have evidence enough to convict him or her of treason or some other serious federal felony. Lifetime appointments.
#24. To: sneakypete (#21) A president can be impeached and removed from office for "high crimes or misdemeanors", which the second part means lack of character. Klintoon was impeached and should have been removed for this reason. The RATS said they wouldn't vote for conviction if he was caught raping a Boy Scout on the front lawn of the WH. Happy 100th to the BS.
#25. To: Pan-Z-Boy (#24) ...which the second part means lack of character. No it doesn't.
#28. To: war (#25) No it doesn't. Can a President be impeached for lying to the American people?
#29. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#28) No.
#31. To: war (#29) No. You're kidding, right? You're saying that you can't be impeached for lying to the American public????
#32. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#31) Yep. That's what I am saying.
#36. To: war (#32) Yep. That's what I am saying. You're so wrong it's laughable. You had better go back and study US Civics 101 War because you either slept through class or smoked a lot of pot.
Replies to Comment # 36. #37. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#36) (Edited) You're so wrong it's laughable. The grounds for impeachment were debated in Annapolis. If you believe that "lying" is grounds for impeachment, do you care to explain why "malfeasance", which is far more egregious behavior than simply lying, was specifically rejected as grounds for impeachment?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 36. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|