Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: Justice Department to challenge AZ law (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  And louder still! (3+ / 0-)

      It's a tough week for people who hate the prez.

      I am, at heart, an optimist, which I consider to be spiritually necessary and proper, as well as intellectually suspect.

      by I love OCD on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 01:39:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So if I desire our federal resources to fight (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CWalter

        corruption of actual laws rather than worrying about stupid local laws that have no impact on reality, I, by implication, "hate the prez"?

        It would be fair to say that I disagree, strongly, with most of Obama's strategies, but I don't hate the man. I just think he's a weak president who believes too much in the inherent goodness of people in power. Is he learning on the job that such trust is dangerous on a scale that he perhaps didn't imagine? I continue to hope.  

        The art of listening is the ability to pay attention to that which is most difficult to hear

        by dRefractor on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 02:55:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, I think Eric Holder (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou, FiredUpInCA

          is doing the right thing here, without any order from Obama, because DOJ is not an adjunct to the WH.  You may see this as a toothless and silly law, many see it as an affront and a threat  to people who are likely to be stopped for driving, walking, or working while Hispanic.  We don't need more of that in this country, do we?   Institutionalizing racism is as ugly as it comes, IMO.  

          I find it interesting that you work so hard to justify yourself around this.

          I am, at heart, an optimist, which I consider to be spiritually necessary and proper, as well as intellectually suspect.

          by I love OCD on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 05:11:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'd find it interesting if you (0+ / 0-)

            would argue with facts. We already won this fight by forcing the amendments to Arizona's immigration law to INCLUDE the language specifically eliminating race as a factor for law enforcement to reasonably  suspect someone.

            Without "reasonable suspicion," law enforcement cannot ask for "papers" beyond the normal function of the legal encounter. In other words, if you are stopped for speeding, you cannot be asked for your papers beyond your driver's license.

            Contrast this FACT versus the political theater promoted by Markos and this diary amongst many others. Nearly all of these diaries dishonestly repeat the original wording of 1070, which upon the rightful embarrassment showered on the state, was amended.

            Ironically, forcing the specific exclusions to the law has the effect of dampening racism rather than the hysterical claim that it is institutionalizing it -- law enforcement will now be under LEGAL scrutiny to make sure they are following the letter of the law. Before, the lines were much more fuzzy and justice was more at the mercy of the vagaries of wink-and-nod jurisprudence.

            So please, do yourself a favor and read the law as it actually exists (as modified by HB 2162). There is nothing in it the threatens immigrants any more than they are already harassed today.

            If, upon reading the actual law as it exists you still feel that there is any meat that racists can hang their hat on, I'd seriously like to hear about it. Until then, I think this ongoing dust-up is a distraction from actually solving the immigration conundrum.

            The art of listening is the ability to pay attention to that which is most difficult to hear

            by dRefractor on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 06:48:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am absolutely in agreement (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dRefractor

              that this law is nonsense and a distraction from the sloth and weakness of Congress.  And it doesn't matter how the law is written, it doesn't matter what the courts do with a discrimination lawsuit 10 years down the road, none of that matters.  The intent is to make being hispanic in Arizona dangerous, and on the scene reports indicate that it's doing a dynamite job.

              I've been on the receiving end of incompetent police work.  I can tell you that it cost me 3 days in jail and more money than I had, a kind of humiliation I never thought I'd experience in this country, and left me with not one shred of confidence in our criminal justice system or the competence of small town cops.  I didn't think you could be arrested and jailed because someone lied about something you did.  I just didn't think it was possible.  You can be, and you'll be the one who finds the money to defend yourself, or takes what the judge tells you to take.  I didn't have $20,000, so I was on probation for 3 years for something I didn't do, something there was no witness to, something no one investigated.  How a law is written means jackshit.

              I am, at heart, an optimist, which I consider to be spiritually necessary and proper, as well as intellectually suspect.

              by I love OCD on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 08:09:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this (0+ / 0-)

                How a law is written means jackshit.

                Small town abuses happen because of vague laws (or in other cases, outdated ones that are not vague). It is important for those who would abuse their power to have at least some reasonable legitimacy in the legal code.

                It will be more difficult for purely racial abuse now that there is precise language barring racial profiling. Barring it. No longer can deputy joe/jane walk into court and smirk to a sympathetic judge that the person just looked funny. Fewer, if any, Judges will risk their positions to tolerate that in the courtroom.

                As to immigrant abuse that has been going on in Arizona, I very much doubt that the new law will have a negative impact except for a few dumb-ass citizens who will undoubtedly try to sue their municipalities because they don't like their neighbors -- they will be slapped down.

                Time will tell, will keep my eyes open for stories in the New Times.

                p.s., the reason I react so strongly to these ARIZONA hating hater screeds is not a lack of empathy for those who are racially abused -- I abhor such, but rather a) I genuinely believe that it is a good thing that racial profiling is now forbidden explicitly; b) a lot of good liberal democrats live in the state of Arizona and I believe boycotts can be a form of discrimination unless they are used against specific targets that promote racism. The legislators and people who live in Flagstaff and Tucson should not have to suffer economic consequences for the Jag-offs who represent Yuma, or Mesa or Scottsdale, etc. If we were really smart and organized, we'd target specific areas (and not just in Arizona by any stretch) where legislators truly cross the line in proposed (even if not implemented) legislation.

                The art of listening is the ability to pay attention to that which is most difficult to hear

                by dRefractor on Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 09:39:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Hold the bus (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CWalter, dRefractor

        I thought the president has no say over the actions of Justice.  Or do you disagree with that position?

        •  Ideally, I don't think presidents should interfer (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou, FiredUpInCA

          with DOJ.

          But the Obama detractors have pushed the meme that DOJ=Obama and Obama=DOJ, so now they have to live with it when the Obama supporters use that meme against them.

          Now, the question presents itself: Are the Obama detractors going to rally around the administration's challenge to the AZ law or is their dislike of the President going to prevent that?

          P.S.
          In reality, the exact relationship between the WH and DOJ is murky.  There aren't really any hard and fast rules.  I think the loose guideline is that WH can consult with DOJ on setting general policy (like, "Should we prosecute medical marijuana users in states that allow medical use of marijuana even though such users are violating federal law?") but the WH should not interfere in specific cases.  But that's just a loose guideline, loose enough that it can be used by both supporters and detractors of any president to whack each other over the head whenever the DOJ does anything.

           In this particular case, it appears that the WH opposed the AZ law (the President spoke against it), referred the matter to the DOJ (Holder said the DOJ was evaluating it), and the DOJ decided to take up the case.

          •  Logical consistency (0+ / 0-)

            If you adopt the view that Obama deserves credit for this DOJ decision, then you have to accept criticism directed at Obama for other DOJ decisions if you intend to be logically consistent.  If not, you are merely intellectually dishonest.

            I think the view you adopt is a bit juvenile.  Either you believe DOJ should act completely indepedently of the pres or not.  Your position should reflect your view of the proper relationship.  It should not be determined by the views of others.  Regardless, so long as you are willing to be consistent and will accept DOJ criticisms directed at the president, no one would have a problem with your view.

            As to the relationship between the pres and DOJ, there are no rules.  The president has full authority to faithfully execute the laws.  The notion of a screen between the pres and DOJ is intended to protect against the president using Justice as its personal enforcer to go after enemies.  As the last admin illustrates, the screen is often a mere fiction.  

      •  the words "hate" and "Obama" don't appear (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dRefractor

        in his post.  At all.

        ~Kinda done with the whole May You Live In Interesting Times thing~

        by CWalter on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 03:08:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No they don't, do they. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou, Escamillo, FiredUpInCA

          I just thought it was an interesting thing that someone would so passionately oppose the DOJ taking a stand against institutionalized racism.  What drives that?

          I am, at heart, an optimist, which I consider to be spiritually necessary and proper, as well as intellectually suspect.

          by I love OCD on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 05:13:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  LOL! (5+ / 0-)

      Exactly right.  Meanwhile, the Little Presidency That Would churns along...

      climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

      by GN1927 on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 02:49:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site