12 total posts
The voters must be the ones to boot him out but
haven't done so? even though they've had to foot the bill for millions in fines? That's very telling and important to know. We might consider that either these voters have no clue as to what this guy is doing or feel that he's worth the price.
RE: feel that he's worth the price.
I guess it's time for the the Feds to use "financial blackmail" to get the point across.......Since the Sheriff COULD run the police force from inside the jail.
Perhaps he could get an adjoining cell for his significant other (if he has one). Or maybe an adjoining tent...they are in Arizona....
Or the feds could take the hint
that this is the kind of policy people here really want. Of course we could never allow that to happen. The feds must dictate policy rather than take direction from mere citizens.
Federal judges (that was what this thread started with) don't take hints from mere citizens. They take hints from federal law and the Supreme Court. Nothing wrong with that, is it?
Partially correct but part of a circle
that supposedly begins (or began) with the will of mere citizens who select legislators that write and enact law based on that will. It is the legislators that are expected to ensure, as best as possible, that laws are reasonable and don't infringe on rights granted through the constitution. Judges determine whether infringement of law has taken place and impose some corrective action. It's the duty of the executive branch of our government (starting with the president) to ensure laws are enforced.
Now all of these people in the circle here will sometimes need to chose between doing what is right and proper regardless of the consequences to them or their positions or to protect those positions to avoid consequences of their own. That's the ugly battle that goes on constantly and we, the people, see that.
What I'm saying here is that failure to remove this elected sheriff by those who put him in office may just indicate that his policies reflect the will of the people and higher ups in government might just want to sit up and take notice of that. Those who elected the sheriff and/or those not in that county who see a popular sheriff under fire from federal authority do have the ability to threaten the positions of those who would remove him. Feedback from the population can be a powerful thing as long as federal government remains in their control rather than become like a dictatorship.
Speaking of who does what (duties)....
Law ENFORCEMENT, enforces the law...not INTERPRET the law.
Don't Racial profile....Seems pretty simple...
I think it would be nice to see him behind bars...do they put bars on a tent?
Unfortunately, as usual, liberals want it
both ways......enforcement by law doesn't seem to matter in 'sanctuary cities' or even in SCOTUS because liberals interpret the written law rather than enforce what was written. That's true at the Federal Court levels far too often, especially when you have district appellate courts that oversee a number of states rather than each state have their own individually.
IF each state had their own Federal Appellate Court and cases only went to SCOTUS to decide once that state's system was exhausted, you wouldn't end up with ultra liberal interpreted decisions made in liberal states (such as San Francisco's) that dictate laws made in conservative states, and billions in taxpayer money would be saved.
Remember whether the states or the Feds
rule was decided by a small war we had.
So you're saying that it's okay to discriminate as long as it's the "will of the people"? That is part of the Constitution with three branches so the rule of the majority doesn't infringe on the rights of the minority.
So, in your opinion,
illegals should be left alone on the streets to continue to break our laws rather than be picked up and deported? Consider that a heavy majority of those 'locked' up in those tents are repeat offenders......should they be let loose to go to San Francisco (a sanctuary city) and be protected by their elected officials? Or to Chicago, that already has a tremendous crime problem, where Rahm publicly invited illegals to come to his city and look how well that's turned out for him and his gang problems?
Where exactly IS the discrimination liberals keep talking about, Diana? If the citizens of this county in Arizona feel safer because of the huge numbers of illegals that keep crossing their borders by having them locked up, should THEY be discriminated against by those same criminals via drugs and crime and whatever else they have done or will do because some liberal judge says those illegals are being targeted unfairly? Don't criminals literally target their victims?
What some of us don't get is that Arizona
is a state that has the ability to filter illegal traffic in a way no other state has. It has no natural border as does Texas and the California side is much smaller and difficult to access from the mainland of Mexico. It would seem that the NIMBY crowd should be well pleased that Arizona exists and is trying it's best to protect itself from being swamped by immigrants that it cannot know whether they are benign or threatening. We we don't live there might want to stop criticizing the state and be happy it doesn't fold up and let the illegal immigrants take it over.
Don't read that into it
Let's make this as simple as possible. What I am saying is that those who make law and decide how to enforce them should pay close attention to the response of the citizens.
What is alleged to have been happening is based on an interpretation of the 4th amendment which forbids unreasonable search and seizure. That amendment was written to apply to federal jurisdiction and, although considered part of the "supreme law" wasn't much of an issue until more recently. The challenges have been to its interpretation...in other words, what is "unreasonable". The term "racial profiling" is even newer and part of the argument targeted at the "probable cause" portion of that argument.
BTW, do you have random sobriety checks in your state? These don't racially profile but can stop any driver and are often done during times when it's known that heavy drinking occurs. Does this mean someone who is out driving at 2:00 AM on New Year's Day is likely to be intoxicated?...probable cause? Maybe if drinkers could create their own voting block someone would sit up and take notice. That's my point...that this is political and not strictly an act to ensure no one is unduly harassed.