Online Now 2463

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

On this Board 73
Record: 9642 (12/28/2012)

Online now 2390
Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)

Boards ▾

The Front Row

The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes

Around the 'Shoe

Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes

The Best Damn Recruiting Board

If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here

Bucknutin' But Net

Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

The Buckeye Babe Thread

Share your favorite pix, a special lady in your life or someone else's life

Reply

SCOUS Seems To Like AZ Immigration Law

  • Apr. 25, 2012 12:30 PM ET
    Supreme Court takes up Arizona immigration law
    By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press

    Apr. 23, 20123:39 PM
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.

    Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.

    "You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

    It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.

    Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court's term.

    The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states' role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government's control.

    Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to "engage effectively in mass incarceration" of undocumented immigrants.

    But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli's characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. "It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally and who's not," Roberts said.

    The administration challenged the law in federal court. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah passed similar laws, parts of which also are on hold pending the high court's decision.

    The court hearing comes as presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney is trying to find a way to cut President Barack Obama's strong support among Latino voters. Romney was drawn to the right on issues like immigration as he fought off other Republicans in state GOP primary elections. On Monday, Romney signaled he was considering a wide range of immigration policies, including a proposal from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that would allow some of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants a chance at visas to stay in the U.S.

    A decision in the high-profile immigration case is expected in late June as both camps will be gearing up for the general election.

    Arizona argues that with its 370-mile border with Mexico, it has paid a disproportionate price for illegal immigration. It says its 2010 law is consistent with federal immigration policy.

    The administration says the law, and Arizona's approach of maximum enforcement, conflict with a more nuanced federal immigration policy that seeks to balance national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, human rights and the rights of law-abiding citizens and immigrants.

    Civil rights groups that back the administration say Arizona's and the other states' measures encourage racial profiling and ethnic stereotyping. California, New York and nine other states with significant immigrant populations support the Obama administration.

    Florida, Michigan and 14 other states, many of which also are challenging Obama's health care overhaul, argue that Arizona's law does not conflict with federal law.

    Justice Elena Kagan, who was Obama's first solicitor general, is not taking part in the case, presumably because she worked on it while in the Justice Department.

    The case is Arizona v. U.S., 11-182.

    pazbuc

  • The Obama Administration is caught between a rock and a hrad place on this. How can they argue AGAINST the Arizona Law when the Federal Government does the same thing as the Arizona Law? States have to uphold Federal Law too, they can't just ignore them. But that seems to be what the Obama Administration is arguing. If that were true, then every State could just ignore all Federal Laws if they want. That seems like an odd argument to make.

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior

  • Obama's team doesn't seem to be batting very well before the Supremes lately. When their decisions come down in June it should make for great politcal fodder.

    This post was edited by pazbuc on 4/25/2012 at 1:59 PM

    pazbuc

  • That law is BS. It says anyone who is supected of being here illegally is to be detained if they cannot verify they are here legally. I have no papeers that say I'm here legally but I was born here and so were my folks. This law stinks of racial profiling, and that cowboy Arpaio is a thug with a badge.

    Yeah, I said it.

    shalvoy

  • So, you think most of the illegals in Arizona are caucasians from Sweden? Damn right the authorities should be targeting hispanics when cracking down on illegal immigration. Yup, I'm a believer in racial profiling. It's the common sense thing to do.

    bradysmanboobs

  • bradysmanboobs said...

    So, you think most of the illegals in Arizona are caucasians from Sweden? Damn right the authorities should be targeting hispanics when cracking down on illegal immigration. Yup, I'm a believer in racial profiling. It's the common sense thing to do.

    I believe in profiling unmitigated ignorance and stupidity.

    Step to head of the line and be recognized, cupcake.

    Unit_D

  • bradysmanboobs said...

    So, you think most of the illegals in Arizona are caucasians from Sweden? Damn right the authorities should be targeting hispanics when cracking down on illegal immigration. Yup, I'm a believer in racial profiling. It's the common sense thing to do.

    Except for the specific language written into the law that says "race and language MAY NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION when inquiring about ones legal status". We shouldn't pass laws that are blatant violations of civil rights by making the mitigating circumstance for detention skin-color. It's not 1840, being a person of color is not grounds for intimidation, questioning, or detention.

    You should think before you talk/post. You sound like a biggot.

    This guy Arpaio; isn't he the same guy who wants a federal investigation into The President's place of birth? And this is someone who should be enforcing the law? You should look up the improprioties that he's watching over.

    Yeah, I said it.

    shalvoy

  • Unit_D said...

    I believe in profiling unmitigated ignorance and stupidity.

    Step to head of the line and be recognized, cupcake.

    Well played, sir. Well played.

    Yeah, I said it.

    shalvoy

  • Unit D, the D in your name must be for Dunce! Racial profiling is EFFECTIVE and the MAJORITY of americans believe in it! Public safety takes priority over the butthurt feelings of brainwashed libs like you.

    If people like you were in charge, no one would ever be arrested. There would be no law and order.

    bradysmanboobs

  • bradysmanboobs said...

    Unit D, the D in your name must be for Dunce! Racial profiling is EFFECTIVE and the MAJORITY of americans believe in it! Public safety takes priority over the butthurt feelings of brainwashed libs like you.

    If people like you were in charge, no one would ever be arrested. There would be no law and order.

    Actually, the D is part of Unit_D, which was a part of a long gone dormitory at OSU called The Stadium Scholarship Dorm.

    I lived there (not in Unit_D, but in another unit in the same general area).

    You are definitely right about profiling being effective, BTW.

    I mean, I was able to pick you out as a troglodyte right away, wasn't I?

    Unit_D

  • bradysmanboobs said...

    Unit D, the D in your name must be for Dunce! Racial profiling is EFFECTIVE and the MAJORITY of americans believe in it! Public safety takes priority over the butthurt feelings of brainwashed libs like you.

    If people like you were in charge, no one would ever be arrested. There would be no law and order.

    We'll take that under consideration if you ever get questioned and arrested for merely looking like an idiot.

    The last guy that got profiled for looking like a hooded teenager ended up being shot and killed by his profiler, who all right-wingers are now defending and applauding.

    BTW, I imagine you Conservative Tea Partiers would like your racist buddies from the backwoods of Michigan, Oregon, Montana, etc, the militant militias to be in charge. We'd really have law and order then.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by McCague on 4/25/2012 at 8:03 PM

    McCague

  • McCague said...

    We'll take that under consideration if you ever get questioned and arrested for merely looking like an idiot.

    The last guy that got profiled for looking like a hooded teenager ended up being shot and killed by his profiler, who all right-wingers are now defending and applauding.

    "The last guy that got profiled for looking like a hooded teenager ended up being shot and killed by his profiler, who all right-wingers are now defending and applauding."

    More lies and misrepresentations from a liberal... Shocking. I'm certain you would consider me to be a "right-winger". Please show where I have either defended Zimmerman's actions let alone applaud them. The only thing you will find is an advocation for due process and disgust at the senseless tragedy because some idiot didn't listen to the cops (who happens to be an Hispanic Democrat by the way). As you would expect, I tend to associate with other "right-wingers" and I have yet to find anyone who is cheering for George Zimmerman (nor are they looking for some symbolic prosecution without a fair trial which he is entitled to just like OJ). It's a shame though that people such as yourself (and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, etc.) see something like this as an opportunity to score political capital and create further divisiveness (again intentionally ignoring the fact that Zimmerman was neither white nor a conservative).

    However, I will freely admit that as a frequent flier I appreciate it when TSA gives a more thorough pat-down to an adult male in Islamic attire than little old ladies in wheel chairs and young children with their parents. Of course, this is "profiling" which obviously makes me a racist and "radical" Christian. I thought liberals were supposed to be fond of academics so it confuses me why they are so passionate about ignoring statistics... Common sense on the other hand has never been their strong suit.

    sryan2

  • shalvoy said...

    That law is BS. It says anyone who is supected of being here illegally is to be detained if they cannot verify they are here legally. I have no papeers that say I'm here legally but I was born here and so were my folks. This law stinks of racial profiling, and that cowboy Arpaio is a thug with a badge.

    You do realize that the Feds can do exactly that?

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior

  • sryan2 said...

    "The last guy that got profiled for looking like a hooded teenager ended up being shot and killed by his profiler, who all right-wingers are now defending and applauding."

    More lies and misrepresentations from a liberal... Shocking. I'm certain you would consider me to be a "right-winger". Please show where I have either defended Zimmerman's actions let alone applaud them. The only thing you will find is an advocation for due process and disgust at the senseless tragedy because some idiot didn't listen to the cops (who happens to be an Hispanic Democrat by the way). As you would expect, I tend to associate with other "right-wingers" and I have yet to find anyone who is cheering for George Zimmerman (nor are they looking for some symbolic prosecution without a fair trial which he is entitled to just like OJ). It's a shame though that people such as yourself (and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, etc.) see something like this as an opportunity to score political capital and create further divisiveness (again intentionally ignoring the fact that Zimmerman was neither white nor a conservative).

    However, I will freely admit that as a frequent flier I appreciate it when TSA gives a more thorough pat-down to an adult male in Islamic attire than little old ladies in wheel chairs and young children with their parents. Of course, this is "profiling" which obviously makes me a racist and "radical" Christian. I thought liberals were supposed to be fond of academics so it confuses me why they are so passionate about ignoring statistics... Common sense on the other hand has never been their strong suit.

    "I will freely admit that as a frequent flier I appreciate it when TSA gives a more thorough pat-down to an adult male in Islamic attire"

    That's because the Klan doesn't wear the hoods outside the neighborhood, and the abortion clinic bombers look just like you!

    I'll bet if a white guy from Kansas stood in line next to you wearing "Islamic attire" you'd be so confused you'd wet yourself...

    "Damn, he LOOKS Normal, but he's wearing that Muslim stuff..."

    This post was edited by Unit_D on 4/25/2012 at 8:39 PM

    Unit_D

  • Unit_D said...

    I believe in profiling unmitigated ignorance and stupidity.

    Step to head of the line and be recognized, cupcake.

    Why didn't you call out Dave for making racist posts? Is it because you agree with him politically?

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior

  • Buckeye Warrior said...

    Why didn't you call out Dave for making racist posts? Is it because you agree with him politically?

    Probably because the only one who thinks he is making racist posts is probably racist?

    Unit_D

  • sryan2 said...

    "The last guy that got profiled for looking like a hooded teenager ended up being shot and killed by his profiler, who all right-wingers are now defending and applauding."

    More lies and misrepresentations from a liberal... Shocking. I'm certain you would consider me to be a "right-winger". Please show where I have either defended Zimmerman's actions let alone applaud them. The only thing you will find is an advocation for due process and disgust at the senseless tragedy because some idiot didn't listen to the cops (who happens to be an Hispanic Democrat by the way). As you would expect, I tend to associate with other "right-wingers" and I have yet to find anyone who is cheering for George Zimmerman (nor are they looking for some symbolic prosecution without a fair trial which he is entitled to just like OJ). It's a shame though that people such as yourself (and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, etc.) see something like this as an opportunity to score political capital and create further divisiveness (again intentionally ignoring the fact that Zimmerman was neither white nor a conservative).

    However, I will freely admit that as a frequent flier I appreciate it when TSA gives a more thorough pat-down to an adult male in Islamic attire than little old ladies in wheel chairs and young children with their parents. Of course, this is "profiling" which obviously makes me a racist and "radical" Christian. I thought liberals were supposed to be fond of academics so it confuses me why they are so passionate about ignoring statistics... Common sense on the other hand has never been their strong suit.

    Then who have we been arguing with over these last few weeks over the Zimmerman case? We were the ones arguing that he should be tried from the start. It was conservatives who were invoking the "Stand-your-ground" law until he was about to be tried, then it was all about "the right to a fair trial." As if we were advocating for an unfair trial.

    As a very frequent flier I would rather they include everyone in closer scrutinization, including me. Terrorists exist in all colors and manner of dress. I don't imagine the 9-11 terrorists were wearing Islamic attire when they boarded those planes. If I were going to take over or bomb a plane, I certainly wouldn't wear crazy-man clothes and have uni-bomber hair.

    This post was edited by McCague on 4/25/2012 at 8:49 PM

    McCague

  • Unit_D said...

    Probably because the only one who thinks he is making racist posts is probably racist?

    There was a lot more than me calling him out. Also, no matter what side of the isle you are on, what Dave posted was in fact bigoted and racist. It says a lot about you that you not only refuse to call him out like you do to Conservatives, but you actually choose to DEFEND Dave and his racist remarks.

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior

  • McCague said...

    Then who have we been arguing with over these last few weeks over the Zimmerman case?

    As a very frequent flier I would rather they include everyone in closer scrutinization, including me. Terrorists exist in all colors and manner of dress. I don't imagine the 9-11 terrorists were wearing Islamic attire when they boarded those planes. If I were going to take over or bomb a plane, I certainly wouldn't wear my crazy-man clothes and have uni-bomber hair.

    You see what you want to see and interpret things however they best support your personal agenda. I get that your sky is purple and I'm under no illusion that I could change a mindset such as yours. Again though, I thought liberals were supposed to be fond of academics so it confuses me why they are so passionate about ignoring statistics...

    sryan2

  • McCague said...

    Then who have we been arguing with over these last few weeks over the Zimmerman case? We were the ones arguing that he should be tried from the start. It was conservatives who were invoking the "Stand-your-ground" law until he was about to be tried, then it was all about "the right to a fair trial." As if we were advocating for an unfair trial.

    As a very frequent flier I would rather they include everyone in closer scrutinization, including me. Terrorists exist in all colors and manner of dress. I don't imagine the 9-11 terrorists were wearing Islamic attire when they boarded those planes. If I were going to take over or bomb a plane, I certainly wouldn't wear crazy-man clothes and have uni-bomber hair.

    "Terrorists exist in all colors and manner of dress"... You're absolutely right. You never know when a 9 year old with cerebral palsy is going to decide to take out a plane, http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/04/25/family-misses-flight-after-tsa-gives-pat-down-to-girl-with-cerebral-palsy/ . You really can't make up the insanity you guys believe/advocate.

    Here's a little analogy for you to help break it down even further... We have four ponds in my neighborhood. Three are man made and one if natural fed. All of them have fish. However, the one that is natural fed has by far and away the most and largest varieties. Let's make the assumption that the people living around these bodies of water all take great pride in the one closest to them. Liberals would feel it is appropriate to require that equal time be spent fishing at all four so as not to offend any neighbors. Everyone else would simply recognize how ridiculous that is and go to the pond where they are assured to catch the most fish. Meanwhile, the liberals would proceed to ridicule them for not being as intellectually advanced and sensitive as they are. After all, it is not results which matter but rather how people feel that is important.

    Our security personnel need to be fishing in the right ponds for many reasons but including that we don't have unlimited resources to finance them wasting time trying to catch fish in a wading pool so we can appease the left's demented view of political correctness.

    sryan2

  • sryan2 said...

    "Terrorists exist in all colors and manner of dress"... You're absolutely right. You never know when a 9 year old with cerebral palsy is going to decide to take out a plane, http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/04/25/family-misses-flight-after-tsa-gives-pat-down-to-girl-with-cerebral-palsy/ . You really can't make up the insanity you guys believe/advocate.

    Here's a little analogy for you to help break it down even further... We have four ponds in my neighborhood. Three are man made and one if natural fed. All of them have fish. However, the one that is natural fed has by far and away the most and largest varieties. Let's make the assumption that the people living around these bodies of water all take great pride in the one closest to them. Liberals would feel it is appropriate to require that equal time be spent fishing at all four so as not to offend any neighbors. Everyone else would simply recognize how ridiculous that is and go to the pond where they are assured to catch the most fish. Meanwhile, the liberals would proceed to ridicule them for not being as intellectually advanced and sensitive as they are. After all, it is not results which matter but rather how people feel that is important.

    Our security personnel need to be fishing in the right ponds for many reasons but including that we don't have unlimited resources to finance them wasting time trying to catch fish in a wading pool so we can appease the left's demented view of political correctness.

    Here in a nutshell is how the looney tunes right justify profiling:

    First, gin up a perceived "enemy." This is the easy part - you can do it on a purely physical component. Blacks were always an easy target - hell, all one had to do was find one black person who "commited' a crime against a white and voila! ALL blacks needed to be scrutinized, then demonized, then marginalized.

    Well, that lost its luster over time (damn you Rosa Parks!) but never fear - here come the gays! I'll bet if we look hard enough we can find an effeminate looking gay guy who molested a child (don't worry -we'll make one up if we can't) and then voila! gays are one step away from getting Fido drunk and clearing off the dining room table.

    Now, wouldn't ya just know it that the damn gays are getting all uppity - now what? Hey, how about Muslims? We know the damn Iraquis crashed planes into buildings (no, they were mostly Saudis - you know, the guys that Bush was best buddies with) and they loves them some Muslim religion over there, so why not? Hell, we can even TELL what they look like, what with them wearing all that get-up and everything.

    Besides, they hate up for our freedoms, and our cheeseburgers, and for the fact that while we sit here and moan over the war on religion that our buddies at Fox tell us we're in we take the same hatred we think is being directed at us good 'ol god-fearing sumbitches and we use it against somebody else!

    Damn, how the f#%k stupid ARE we????

    You can come up with as many jack-ass "pond" analogies as you want. It's common practice for the bigoted or the fearful to define their prejudices in said terms. By doing so, they are then all able to (collectively) bob heads together with a resounding chorus of "yep, that's right!", as if in some alternate world two idiots make one thinking person.

    P.S. I'll bet Tim McVeigh would have passed your terrorist test, wouldn't he? Especially if he was wearing a cross.

    Every time the thinking portion of America thinks you dolts can't get any dumber you prove us wrong.

    This post was edited by Unit_D on 4/26/2012 at 8:19 AM

    Unit_D

  • sryan2 said...

    You see what you want to see and interpret things however they best support your personal agenda. I get that your sky is purple and I'm under no illusion that I could change a mindset such as yours. Again though, I thought liberals were supposed to be fond of academics so it confuses me why they are so passionate about ignoring statistics...

    WAIT!

    The sky is purple???????

    I am SURE I heard Hannity say last night that it was green.

    Shit.

    Now what do I do??????

    Unit_D

  • I love how having a different political point of view makes you a Bigot. haha

    Is President Obama a Bigot because he's sent more iIlegal Immigrants back to Mexico than any other President? How in fact do Border Patrol or other federal agents determine who's here legally or illegally? They do it the same way as written in the Arizona law. By deductive reasoning, I would say the President is just as much a Bigot as the Governor of Arizona, because literally they are doing the same thing.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by whvball on 4/26/2012 at 9:22 AM

    whvball

  • Unit_D said...

    Here in a nutshell is how the looney tunes right justify profiling:

    First, gin up a perceived "enemy." This is the easy part - you can do it on a purely physical component. Blacks were always an easy target - hell, all one had to do was find one black person who "commited' a crime against a white and voila! ALL blacks needed to be scrutinized, then demonized, then marginalized.

    Well, that lost its luster over time (damn you Rosa Parks!) but never fear - here come the gays! I'll bet if we look hard enough we can find an effeminate looking gay guy who molested a child (don't worry -we'll make one up if we can't) and then voila! gays are one step away from getting Fido drunk and clearing off the dining room table.

    Now, wouldn't ya just know it that the damn gays are getting all uppity - now what? Hey, how about Muslims? We know the damn Iraquis crashed planes into buildings (no, they were mostly Saudis - you know, the guys that Bush was best buddies with) and they loves them some Muslim religion over there, so why not? Hell, we can even TELL what they look like, what with them wearing all that get-up and everything.

    Besides, they hate up for our freedoms, and our cheeseburgers, and for the fact that while we sit here and moan over the war on religion that our buddies at Fox tell us we're in we take the same hatred we think is being directed at us good 'ol god-fearing sumbitches and we use it against somebody else!

    Damn, how the f#%k stupid ARE we????

    You can come up with as many jack-ass "pond" analogies as you want. It's common practice for the bigoted or the fearful to define their prejudices in said terms. By doing so, they are then all able to (collectively) bob heads together with a resounding chorus of "yep, that's right!", as if in some alternate world two idiots make one thinking person.

    P.S. I'll bet Tim McVeigh would have passed your terrorist test, wouldn't he? Especially if he was wearing a cross.

    Every time the thinking portion of America thinks you dolts can't get any dumber you prove us wrong.

    "Perceived 'enemy'"... Perhaps you did not notice the commonality of the terrorists who flew the planes into NYC, DC, and PA. Do you pay any attention to issued warnings from entities such as Al Qaeda or are they simply a fringe group (I'm sure no more dangerous in your mind than the dreaded militia in America). Additionally, I'm certain the FBI and Department of Homeland Security could expand your horizons on where and from whom our most grave threats are originating.

    Now, does this mean I wouldn't respect, hire, be friends with, or associate with any person who is Muslim, absolutely not. However, do I think someone who fits a certain profile of which that is part of the criteria might deserve some extra scrutiny at an airport or in a particular building? You can call it discrimination, but most of the rest of us will recognize it for prudence and responsibility. Again, I thought liberals were supposed to be fond of academics so it confuses me why they are so passionate about ignoring statistics.

    If people such as yourself are "the thinking portion of America", God help us all.

    sryan2

  • Buckeye Warrior said...

    The Obama Administration is caught between a rock and a hrad place on this. How can they argue AGAINST the Arizona Law when the Federal Government does the same thing as the Arizona Law? States have to uphold Federal Law too, they can't just ignore them. But that seems to be what the Obama Administration is arguing. If that were true, then every State could just ignore all Federal Laws if they want. That seems like an odd argument to make.

    upvote for the sig!

    signature image signature image signature image

    SLVRBULLIT82