Breaking: Judge grants injunction on most vehemently opposed parts of AZ law!

[The_Dude 1,142]

If you're saying she made a constitutional ruling, then the decision should be thrown out actually, as that was not her job today. It was a matter of, "do we let it go into effect or not" before the real case comes about.

Of course I'll take my expertise over someone acting like a political hack in their judicial rulings.

I think it was quite clear what he was saying. I have to agree, I trust the legal acumen of a federal judge over that of a self-styled legal scholar with no background in law, nor any education in the field.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you're saying she made a constitutional ruling, then the decision should be thrown out actually, as that was not her job today. It was a matter of, "do we let it go into effect or not" before the real case comes about.

Of course I'll take my expertise over someone acting like a political hack in their judicial rulings.

That's the spirit. Don't let anyone convince you that you don't know sh!t.

[mawilson 2,133]

Yeah, she doesn't know sh!t about constitutional law. Not like you do.

There's no constitutional requirement for a Supreme Court justice to be a lawyer.

We'd all be better off if judges used common sense instead of basing their decisions

on centuries of former legal precedents and case law.

[^_^ 5,021]

I think it was quite clear what he was saying. I have to agree, I trust the legal acumen of a federal judge over that of a self-styled legal scholar with no background in law, nor any education in the field.

+1

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you're saying she made a constitutional ruling, then the decision should be thrown out actually, as that was not her job today. It was a matter of, "do we let it go into effect or not" before the real case comes about.

Of course I'll take my expertise over someone acting like a political hack in their judicial rulings.

You're a thick as fog.

The district courts exercise original jurisdiction over—that is, they are empowered to conduct trials in—the following types of cases:

• Civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States;^[8]
• Certain civil actions between citizens of different states;^[9]
• Civil actions within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of the United States;^[10]
• Criminal prosecutions brought by the United States;^[11]
• Civil actions in which the United States is a party;^[12] and
• Many other types of cases and controversies^[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_district_court

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think it was quite clear what he was saying. I have to agree, I trust the legal acumen of a federal judge over that of a self-styled legal scholar with no background in law, nor any education in the field.

I've stated numerous times now my background in law, but you can feel free to try again. False arguments do not hold ground in this chamber!

You're a thick as fog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_district_court

What's your point?

My point is simply that this was not a ruling on the law. This was a ruling that decided whether it should go into effect or not pending an actual hearing/trial on the law itself.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I've stated numerous times now my background in law, but you can feel free to try again. False arguments do not hold ground in this chamber!

What's your point?

My point is simply that this was not a ruling on the law. This was a ruling that decided whether it should go into effect or not pending an actual hearing/trial on the law itself.

I don't recall ever reading what your background in law is, so please to state it, unless you are talking about your self-educational reading up on the constitution and legal matters. In that case, that is not a background in law any more than me driving too fast on the freeway will qualify me for the Nascar circuit. But I would wager that your education and experience in the legal field is significantly less than that of a federal judge.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't recall ever reading what your background in law is, so please to state it, unless you are talking about your self-educational reading up on the constitution and legal matters. In that case, that is not a background in law any more than me driving too fast on the freeway will qualify me for the Nascar circuit. But I would wager that your education and experience in the legal field is significantly less than that of a federal judge.

That's BS and you know it.

[Peikko 1,575]

The gloating is stupid, nothing to gloat over.

The decision is fair and reasonable, by a judge the extremists were fawning before the decision was made but now they think she's an ####? That's too funny

[The_Dude 1,142]

That's BS and you know it.

No it's not. How does an undirected and uneducated reading of material qualify him as having any sort of background in law?

[^_^ 5,021]

No it's not. How does an undirected and uneducated reading of material qualify him as having any sort of background in law?

Quiet, librul!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Odd that she would enjoin the part requiring immigrants to carry and present status papers. That's required by federal law.

There's no law requiring immigrants to carry and present status papers.

There's a law that says permanent residents or those on a valid visa must be able to document themselves.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Quiet, librul!

I think Mark has a moderate case of butthurt. Steve Jobs must have wiped all his porn off his iPad with new firmware or something.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Wow this thread got nasty quick.

[Peikko 1,575]

Wow this thread got nasty quick.

You expected a more sophisticated reaction? Maybe if the OP had been less "I told you so" it might not have happened, but maybe not. Hard to know.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Madame Cleo