DOJ finally files lawsuit agaist sheiff Joe.

[umbrella39]

So you think illegal immigration is no problem?

Might I suggest the next User Name you choose ? I suggest Fallacious if it isn't already taken...

 

[monovillage]

Sheriff Bully has been pulling the same shit for 20 years, meaning that the State of Arizona has had ample opportunity to act, just as southern states had ample opportunity prior to the civil rights acts.

The sad truth is that the Feds should have squashed Sheriff Joe long ago, but he was protected by the very people & culture you claim should have been consulted beforehand.

Here's part of the aftermath of Arpaio's bullying-

http://azcvoices.com/politics/2012/04/21/arpaio-and-thomas-costing-az-taxpayers-millions/

Lol, a link to Paula Pennypacker's blog. Where the hell do you come up with these troglodyte shill sites? Do you even know what balanced journalism is?

 

[Texashiker]

Jesus, what a complete misunderstanding of the role of the Justice department, much less the workings of our legal system.

I'd wager it came straight from your ass.
.

If the justice department can bypass all of the systems of checks and balances, why not just abolish the 50 states and all elected officials besides on the federal level.

2 funny things about this. First of all you have no idea what contacts there were between Arizona law enforcement and the justice department. Secondly, it is not Arizona's job to enforce federal law. The chain of command you are describing simply doesn't exist. Eric Holder is not the state attorney general's boss.

"We" have no idea has to what steps the justice department has taken.

If its not the states responsibility to uphold civil rights, then whos job is it? Should the justice department get involved very time someones civil rights are stepped on?

Local police officer does an unlawful arrest, should the justice department get involved?

Some company does not make its entrance wheel chair accessible, should the justice department get involved?

Some fast food place does not serve minorities, should the justice department get involved?

 

[fskimospy]

If the justice department can bypass all of the systems of checks and balances, why not just abolish the 50 states and all elected officials besides on the federal level.

There are no state level checks and balances for the enforcement already passed and constitutional federal statutes. If its within the federal government's power to do, and the enforcement of these federal laws most certainly are, then there is nothing a state can do to stop them.

"We" have no idea has to what steps the justice department has taken.

If its not the states responsibility to uphold civil rights, then whos job is it? Should the justice department get involved very time someones civil rights are stepped on?

Local police officer does an unlawful arrest, should the justice department get involved?

Some company does not make its entrance wheel chair accessible, should the justice department get involved?

Some fast food place does not serve minorities, should the justice department get involved?

Right. You're the one opposing it based on something you don't know about. It is the responsibility of both the state and the federal government to uphold civil rights. Specifically, the federal government has statutes to uphold. Joe Arpaio has been engaging in these sorts of behaviors for decades, it is quite clear that the state is not enforcing the issues the feds see. Even if they were, it is entirely up to the federal government as to if the state is fulfilling its obligations up to its satisfaction. It may choose to step in at any time it sees fit, as federal law supercedes all state law.

 

[Texashiker]

There are no state level checks and balances for the enforcement already passed and constitutional federal statutes.

So local police should not arrest people for violation of federal gun laws?

 

[fskimospy]

So local police should not arrest people for violation of federal gun laws?

That's not what checks and balances means.

 

[Texashiker]

That's not what checks and balances means.

I say all 50 states legalize weed, and let the feds deal with issue.

This issue with Sheriff Joe is a state issue, not a federal issue.

If the citizens of that county feel their rights have been violated, then hire an attorney and deal with it locally.

Its call states rights. If there is an issue with a county, or a state, then the issue needs to be dealt with locally.

The federal government is becoming intrusive in our lives. There needs to be a line, a line in the sand that the federal government should not cross. I see this issue with Sheriff Joe as a politically motivated issue. Obama is having the justice department do something about Sheriff Joe in an attempt to win the hispanic vote.

 

[Incorruptible]

Might I suggest the next User Name you choose ? I suggest Fallacious if it isn't already taken...

How many more times are you going to make these ridiculous assumptions, I have stated many times I am not an alt

 

[fskimospy]

I say all 50 states legalize weed, and let the feds deal with issue.

This issue with Sheriff Joe is a state issue, not a federal issue.

If the citizens of that county feel their rights have been violated, then hire an attorney and deal with it locally.

Its call states rights. If there is an issue with a county, or a state, then the issue needs to be dealt with locally.

The federal government is becoming intrusive in our lives. There needs to be a line, a line in the sand that the federal government should not cross. I see this issue with Sheriff Joe as a politically motivated issue. Obama is having the justice department do something about Sheriff Joe in an attempt to win the hispanic vote.

Nope, it's not called states rights, it's called the supremacy clause. If Sheriff Joe is violating federal law then what the state wants is irrelevant. Abuse of civil rights by local public officials is not only an acceptable exercise of federal power, it's one of the primary things it exists to address.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol, a link to Paula Pennypacker's blog. Where the hell do you come up with these troglodyte shill sites? Do you even know what balanced journalism is?

Heh. Sputtering in denial.

Sheriff Joe's cohorts are falling one by one, and he's next. Here's a nice piece about how one was disbarred by the Arizona Supreme Court, not exactly a bastion of liberalism-

The Supreme Court panel’s opinion stated that evidence indicated Arpaio had conspired with Thomas and Aubuchon to file the charges against the judge and two supervisors.

http://www.salon.com/topic/joe_arpaio/

Joe's lucky it's just a lawsuit instead of the criminal indictment he so richly deserves. They're trying to get him to resign, to fade, to take it easy on him, but I doubt he'll go quietly.

 

[Jhhnn]

I say all 50 states legalize weed, and let the feds deal with issue.

This issue with Sheriff Joe is a state issue, not a federal issue.

If the citizens of that county feel their rights have been violated, then hire an attorney and deal with it locally.

Its call states rights. If there is an issue with a county, or a state, then the issue needs to be dealt with locally.

The federal government is becoming intrusive in our lives. There needs to be a line, a line in the sand that the federal government should not cross. I see this issue with Sheriff Joe as a politically motivated issue. Obama is having the justice department do something about Sheriff Joe in an attempt to win the hispanic vote.

Channeling the States' Rights advocates of the 1960's?

 

[monovillage]

Heh. Sputtering in denial.

Sheriff Joe's cohorts are falling one by one, and he's next. Here's a nice piece about how one was disbarred by the Arizona Supreme Court, not exactly a bastion of liberalism-

oe's lucky it's just a lawsuit instead of the criminal indictment he so richly deserves. They're trying to get him to resign, to fade, to take it easy on him, but I doubt he'll go quietly.

We'll see how it goes. At least Salon.com is a reasonable link.