« Dog days in Arizona | Main | Phoenix 101: Desert towns »

June 25, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54fdb30b98834016767d9540a970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supremes SB1070 open thread:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Terry Goddard, the best qualified candidate for governor in the state's history, lost to Jan Brewer." The same Terry Goddard who didn't say boo about SB1070 when he ran.

The AZ Chamber of Commerce cut a deal with Russell Pearce to take out employer enforcement language in exchange for the business community going "neutral" on the bill. http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2010/04/23/arizona-chamber-stayed-neutral-removing-a-big-roadblock/

In fact, an early amendment to the bill erased a section that would have given county attorneys the power to subpoena the records of businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants. In exchange, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry agreed to stand aside, rather than oppose the multi-faceted immigration measure.

As the largest business association in the state, the Arizona Chamber has considerable lobbying power.

Even though Pearce was unable to gain the group’s support, he neutralized an influential opponent that otherwise would have used its lobbying efforts to convince lawmakers to vote against the bill.

That cleared the path for all the Republicans in the lege to vote for it and for all Republican candidates to run on it in 2010.

Apologies, the entire quote below the link should have been italicized.

Democrats like Terry Goddard certainly should have denounced the law strongly. But they still would have lost. I place the blame squarely on the Republicans, the business community, and stupid voters.

Brewer called the SCOTUS ruling a "vindication" even though most of it was thrown out. What remains, though, is like the shingles virus that rests dormant in the body politic after it forgets long ago that it once had chicken pox. And Arpaio still will conduct his grabs, like Col. Kurtz. "He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops."

I believe the ruling was pretty much what i expected. The surprise was where Roberts landed. But then it's not as he is too smart to come off as a racist. The other three justices are blatant racists, in my opinion.

I think Cochise County Sheriff Larry Deavers summoned it up well from a law enforcement position. We have to much to do to be out "hunting illegal immigrants." I think Deavers and many other law enforcement agencies will set a high bar for their personnel, as they should on the stopping and developing "probable cause: beyond your brown, let me see your papers. There is a lot of logical reasons not to get embroiled in big law suits. A view not held by some in law enforcement.

The part the was "thinly" up held will only hold as long as law enforcement abides by the philosophy the constitution states and the policies, cops like Deavers outline for officers.

But I think it will not take long before some in law enforcement violate peoples civil rights and the upheld part will be back to the supreme court.

What cal just said.

In 91 I was in charge of the Phoenix PD's narcotics enforcement at Sky Harbor airport. We had a full page of criteria established to determine (profile)if you were about to take more than $10,000 dollars our of the US. Many were detained and their money seized. Few tried to get it back.

Profiling at that time was starting to get more attention than in the past and a few lawsuits started to pop up around the country.

To adapt law enforcement and later TSA adopted the routine of making sure their stops and searches included a large number of old white people and of course young white kids, so as to offset the high numbers of minorities that were their real targets. This was particularly prevalent in small communities on major highways that were corridors for drug traffic. Lots of small town cops departments got well off from these stops and subsequent Rico seizures.

Note: Grab a copy of the New Times as retired cop Bill Louis has written a book about Arpaio.

Jon, with all due respect, Terry Goddard is a really nice guy and so is Jimmy Carter. But even given my position on the traitor St. Janet, she has a lot bigger set of gonads them both.

I know AZREBEL, I froth at the boca, so I am going to a Spanish like in Spain funeral tonite, and believe me just the Rosario is punishment enough

So an officer must have a person on a removable offense before the inquiry into immigration status may be made. It will be humorous to watch cops on traffic stops reading through long flow charts to determine which offenses are removable and which are not.

West, most police officers are not going to spend a lot of time developing PC just to catch a mexican. The nation as a result of this ruling is at a stand off. And I think it actually is a political victory for Obama and as a result in the long run a victory for many illegal aliens particularly those here as a result of their parents actions. So the war goes on. We have two idiotic political parties, one on a god crazed rampage against anything liberal and another party that dosent know the difference between a fart and taking a dump.

If we're going to re-litigate the 2010 election over and over again, let's be honest: Had the Democrats taken a strong stance against SB1070 they would have taken a bigger beating than they did. The most prominent Dem who denounced it, Raul Grijalva, nearly lost his seat (usually a slam dunk for him) to a teabagger idiot. Again, most of them should have taken a strong stance anyway, since they were going to lose anyway, but can we please cut the crap with this fantasy that "bigger balls" on Democrats would have somehow mitigated this? Anything anti-immigrant automatically gets 60% support in this state and our esteemed business leaders are far more interested in their short term profit and tax cuts than in the long-term health of the community.

10-4 Donna ur right. but it made me feel better.

Whenever there is a debate about issues like this 1070 thing or TBTF or Obamacare, I like to screen out all the bullcrap in its infinite volume and see if I can spot the winners and the losers, regardless of any outcome.

I find that the winners are usually the same winners and the losers are the same losers.

It's good that the dialogue keeps the losers busy so that they don't notice that they just keep on losing.

The system keeps on going. The point spread keeps getting larger and the winning side keeps making the point spread.

It's not even sporting.

I've been absent for a few days due to financial problems. (My coverage of the blog may be spotty in the immediate future for the same reason.)

Today I left a reply to "cal Lash" (and Mr. Talton) regarding the reasons for health care expansion on the fringes of the Phoenix area, in the immediately previous "Dog Days in Arizona" thread.

"cal Lash" wrote:

"In 91 I was in charge of the Phoenix PD's narcotics enforcement at Sky Harbor airport. We had a full page of criteria established to determine (profile)if you were about to take more than $10,000 dollars our of the US. Many were detained and their money seized."

I don't understand this at all. Restrictions on taking out more than $10,000 in undeclared cash are based in federal law and enforcement is the purview of the U.S. Customs Service, not the Phoenix Police Department.

Also, if you don't mind my asking, Mr. Lash, you've said that you're currently 72 years old. According to a memoir by Gordon A. Hunsaker:

"...In the 1960s it was the explosion of drugs that was curbed by officers like; Oscar Long, Manny Quinonez, and Cal Lash..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=4pgxXQ3XhroC&pg=PA308&lpg=PA308&dq=%22cal+lash%22+narcotics+phoenix&source=bl&ots=LDWB_wUKZd&sig=j3KiSD2YRxf5Cc7W8q0wyY4RyQs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4O3oT_icA-ag2gX-jez9DQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22cal%20lash%22%20narcotics%20phoenix&f=false

If you're 72 then you must have been born about 1940. I'm just curious: were you leading a narcotics squad in the PPD in your 20s? A lead investigator? What rank did you hold at that time?

I liked this part of the memoir: the story of the bad-ass gangbanger who agreed to go quietly: "Please, Mr. Lash, I'll get in the police car, just quit talking!"

"Spooky shit", indeed.

Dear Emil, Sorry to hear about your financial difficulties. Hope things look up for you and the rest of the country. Me and the rebel got and spent ours. We are just waiting for the Obama death squads. Thanks for your final answer and statistical up date on Dog Days in Arizona, Did you include the 100's of wealthy folks in Estrella Park. Regardless of your superior intellect I think for a for third time U R wrong.

Regarding my time on the Phoenix Police Narcotics interdiction squad stationed at Sky harbor Airport. We were there at the direction of the Phoenix Police Chief and worked with the Federal DEA. All monies seized by my unit were passed onto the Federal government. Then the monies trickled back down to local agencies as DEA saw fit. Customs was seldom involved.

"There's battle lines being drawn,
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong"

Mine ain't spent.

It's safely tucked away earning .0001% interest.

Why, heck, last quarter I made $1.37 before taxes.

I splurged by going out and getting a coffee and donut at Circle K.

The final line of the NYT's front page piece on the decision:

Justice Elena Kagan disqualified herself from the case, Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182, presumably because she had worked on it as President Obama's solicitor general.

Presumably?

And I bet she delicately sips tea with her fourth finger in the air. What a rarified dope. Conservative justices don't do that. At least not anymore: "Recuse myself? And let the other side win? Over my dead body."

We've got people on our side of the team who don't understand what it means to fight toe to toe with retro primates (Republicans) and Ferengi (Libertarians).

The Democratic Party is infiltrated with nice guy shitheads. And guess what? Nice guy shitheads finish last...

I thought this paragraph from the must read piece in the NYRB by Krugman (and his better half ) shows the nice guy sickness starts at the top of the ticket:

The low point, in Scheiber’s account, was Obama’s inept handling of the 2010 negotiations over the extension of the Bush tax cuts. His own economics team, deeply concerned that “the president was AWOL” on the issue, undertook to resolve it on their own. It was Geithner and the former Clinton political hand Gene Sperling who extracted concessions from the Republicans on the final deal, while Obama still sought compromise. Another casualty of this period was any real progress on debt relief for homeowners. By the end of 2010, both Summers and Romer left Washington in frustration.

Obama doesn't flip-flop.
He just flops...

And Kagan? Same damn lame sickness. In short: she sucks eggs.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jul/12/getting-away-it/?pagination=false

Thanks koreyel!

Just so you all know. i think from the gut my head just nods along. time for some Bukowski.
mas tarde

Emil i gotta hurry on my way ti a spanish funeral.
i became a cop at 28. went into narcotics in 69.
i was a sgt in 90 when assigned to sky harbor.
i retired in 91. i will be 72 in july. the same day thats on the lower ight hand corner of the constituton.

Roberts voted against the right? Not really.

The case came up from the 9th circuit which ruled against all four corners of the Arizona law. Kagan's recusing herself left 8 justices to decide. A 4-4 tie would have resulted in upholding the 9th circuit and striking the Arizona law completely.

Robert's decision to not go with the far right allowed the court to render an opinion reversing part of the 9th circuit's opinion and upholding Arizona's "show me your papers" provision.

The more significant but less publicized opinion was the Montana case which basically put the country on notice that legislation would be going to the highest bidder forever.

Yes,Jon and lego are right.the Montana case ruling is far gloomier-corporations are free to buy elections and outsource workers and avoid any taxes.just what the founding fathers envisioned as good citizenship!

As for SB 1070- "paranoia strikes deep - starts when you're always afraid". It's just the 2012 version of Jim Crow-along with scrubbing vigor rolls!

pat L

In you opinion, how is the religious right able to convince itself that it is OK to vote for a non-Christian?

At a time when they appear to want to blend religion and government into one, how do they make the choice acceptable within their belief system??

My take on that is if the candidate is the lesser of two evils,its OK. As in Mormon (its a cult!) Romney vs Christan-but liberal-Obama. God knows, the religious right would vote for anyone, if they had conservative enough values!

The Montana ruling is a disaster. Game over. This is the Dred Scott decision of the modern era. Roberts will be counted among one of the worst justices, right before Taney. It is either Mussolini-type fascism or revolution. My stomach hurts.

eclecticdog,
Here you go from the book
Days of Destruction Days of Revolt.

From the back cover a partial statement.

“The American Dream, we know is a lie. We will all be sacrificed. The virus of corporate abuse-the perverted belief that only corporate profit matters-has spread to outsource our jobs, cut the budgets of our schools, close our libraries, and plague our communities with foreclosure and unemployment. This virus has brought with it a security and surveillance state that seeks to keep us all on the reservation. No one is immune. The suffering of the other, of the Native American, the African American in the inner city, the unemployed coal miner, or the Hispanic produce picker is universal. They went first. We are next. The indifference we showed to the plight of the underclass, in Biblical terms our “neighbor” haunts us. We failed them, and in doing so we failed ourselves. We were accomplices in our own demise. Revolt is all we have left. It is the only hope.”

The relationship to 1070 and the private prison industry needs to be explored. Someone once said "Follow the money." That seems to me to be insicated here.

That is so true cal. We all have stood by and watched, because we were not them. Now they come for us.

The opening graf of Jon's link:

The last days of a Supreme Court term rarely show off the Justices to great advantage. Like other mortals, they have put off doing their hardest work, so only the most controversial cases remain. They are tired. They are frustrated.

Now consider the first graf of this Discovery Science blog entry:

There’s an old trope that says justice is “what the judge ate for breakfast”. It was coined by Jerome Frank, himself a judge, and it’s a powerful symbol of the legal realism movement. This school of thought holds that the law, being a human concoction, is subject to the same foibles, biases and imperfections that affect everything humans do. We’d love to believe that a judge’s rulings are solely based on rational decisions and written laws. In reality, they can be influenced by irrelevant things like their moods and, as Frank suggested, their breakfasts.

You might love to believe that. Not me. Not ever. I've got to much disrespect for Homo insapience to even pretend to believe that...

There is all sorts of recent science pointing out what absolutely piss poor judges humans make. And that when your case goes before a judge helps determine its conclusion. Good lord how embarrassing: The Judge's belly is growling, I'm doomed.

All of which is to suggest: The salvation of humankind will best be served by AI. Not only should you now want to fly in a plane flown by a human (unless it is Sullenberger, but that's a rara avis) , but there won't be any "justice" until we rid the game of humans and their arrogance. Put the machines in power please. And you humans, go feed the goldfish (if it hasn't already starved to death) or better: drink a beer and tell dirty jokes. Just... get out of the way. Go scratch your butts...

As for Scalia, the sooner that Wall Street Mafia enforcer drops dead, of natural causes, the better. He is one of the most arrogant son of bitch justices to ever walk the planet...


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/11/justice-is-served-but-more-so-after-lunch-how-food-breaks-sway-the-decisions-of-judges/


Right you are koreyel.

Remember the scene from the 60's, a National Guardsman holding a rifle while a cute hippie places a flower stem in the barrel of the rifle?

Fast forward to now. The Democrats are the hippie girl. The tea-party republicans are the guardsman. Only now, the guardsman pulls the trigger.

The republicans play to the base instincts of humans, you know, the really base instincts.

The democrats are still in hippie
la-la land.

Like I've said before, it's not even sporting anymore.

Where is the bill to keep Arizonans out of the rest of the U.S.?

There oughta be a law.

"At a time when they appear to want to blend religion and government into one, how do they make the choice acceptable within their belief system??"

"The Democrats are the hippie girl."

Jesus is that hippie.

So the guardsmen are the Romans and the Republicans are the Pharisees?

Brewer is Medusa?

Arpaio is a gorgon?

I know everytime I see Brewer on TV, I smell salt in the air. (:-(

Mr. Talton wrote:

"Secondly, the great Hispanic backlash/political sea change that the East Coast media keep predicting ain't gonna happen. At least not for a generation or more. It's not happening in Texas. It's sure not going to happen in Arizona...Hispanic turnout is miserably low."

Very possibly true in each point. Yet the deeper question is, why is Hispanic voter participation (as a percentage of the Hispanic population) so low? Civic disengagement? Other factors? Both?

The real issue isn't voter registration as a percentage of the Hispanic population: it's registration as a percentage of the eligible Hispanic population.

According to 2010 Census data, the median age of Hispanics in Arizona is 25.4 compared with that of non-Hispanic Whites at 44.5 years. Furthermore, roughly 40 percent of Hispanics in Arizona are 19 or younger. Given that roughly 10 percent are 15 to 19, a table-napkin calculation assuming equal weight in each of these five years suggests that about 36 percent of Hispanics in Arizona are too young to vote.

Roughly 30 percent of Arizonans in 2010 were Hispanic. If 10 percent of Arizonans are illegal immigrants (a reasonable estimate since a range of moderate estimates place it two percentage points either way) then 1/3 of Arizona Hispanics are illegal immigrants inelegible to vote by virtue of naturalization status. One third of the remaining 60 percent of Hispanics not inelegible solely by virtue of age, is 20 percent. Of course, there may be some overlap between the two groups (illegal immigrants and citizen but minor Hispanics) since some illegal immigrants arrive as minors. I don't have good figures on this, but my sense is that most are 18 or older (and children born here are citizens). So, let's call it an additional 15 percent of Arizona Hispanics rendered inelegible to vote.

So far, we're up to 51 percent of Arizona Hispanics rendered ineligible to vote in Arizona.

Next, consider felony convictions by race in Arizona. This is important because convicted felons lose the elective franchise. I chose convictions rather than incarceration statistics because felons who have served their time and been released are also ineligible to vote. Of course, the same thing is true for non-Hispanic Whites convicted of felonies, so in one sense we're really concerned here with the differential. We also have to be concerned with overlap between citizen Hispanics otherwise eligible to vote and illegal immigrants who have already been excluded above. If we assume (somewhat arbitrarily but -- perhaps -- not without plausibility) a felony conviction rate 9 percentage points higher in Arizona among citizen Hispanics (who have decreased access to high powered private legal aid) -- and this is the most arguable figure I've offered, but also the one with the smallest impact -- then we've rendered fully 3/5 of Arizona Hispanics ineligible to vote.

Now, the fact that Hispanics make up 30 percent of Arizonans but only 14 percent of registered voters in Arizona doesn't seem quite so indicative of civic disengagement. Nor, admittedly, does it suggest the possibility of any quick fixes.

So yesterday the hoopla of the 1070 decision was unleashed on the country.

Later that day the sun set.

This morning the sun rose.

This evening the sun set again.

In spite of the hoopla, the earth just kept on spinning.

Night Night all.

Cal Lash, if 100s of wealthy households were the criterion for health care industry expansion, then Arcadia would be seeing the effects.

In switching from a discussion of age vs. growth to the issue of wealth, you're really offering a straw man argument. Growth at the fringes and higher household incomes sometimes coincide. What counts for shareholders is an increasing number of paying customers (and most health care is paid for by insurance, not private wealth), since this results in increasing profits, so growth is king.

I'm short of time tonight and will reply in the Dog Days thread when possible, hopefully after some additional research. Meanwhile, I would appreciate it if you replied in the thread where I posted, since I don't want to have to duplicate replies across two threads.

Article CBNNews.com 12/16/2011 -Franklin Graham on voting for a Mormon - example of evangelical blog making the case for conservative Christians voting for a Mormon. The right-wingers don't care who does their dirty work. After all, the Evangelicals have cozied up to the Catholic Church in recent years. Any religious group who opposes birth control and those pesky Gays is just fine with them!

Felony-based disenfranchisement is nothing more than keeping non-white and poor whites away from the ballot box. No group knows more about who is encroaching on our civil rights and restricting democracy than those that have been incarcerated. We know it too, but we think a two-party system is twice as good as a one-party system and there is nothing better. Some choice!

Great conversation.

Thanks for that book-jacket quote from "DoDDoR," cal. Can't be repeated often enough.

Petro, u r welcom.
i wll let u no when my new book, VOMIT is available!

Looks like I made a fundamental logical error in calculating eligible Hispanics in Arizona as a percentage of registered voters, instead of as a percentage of ELIGIBLE voters (as I should have).

The Pew Center has a nice web page dealing with this issue, based on 2008 Community Survey (Census) data.

Slightly out of date (four years) but I include it for what it is worth:

http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/vote2010/AZ-eligible-voter-factsheet.pdf

Pew stated that 766,000 Hispanics in Arizona were eligible to vote (defined as 18 or older and U.S. citizens -- no mention of felony conviction disqualifications).

According to a recent piece in Phoenix New Times, there are currently about 450,000 Hispanics registered to vote in Arizona. That means another 300,000 plus relative to Pew figures, and very possibly more now four years later, since the exodus of non-citizen Hispanics does not affect the Hispanic electorate in Arizona. (New Times says 400,000 more eligible but unregistered).

I wrote above:

"(After accounting for age, citizenship status, and elective disenfranchisement from felony convictions) we've rendered fully 3/5 of Arizona Hispanics ineligible to vote."

Pew, which takes age and citizenship status, but not legal disenfranchisement into effect, wrote in 2010 (re 2008 data):

"Some 39% of Latinos in Arizona
are eligible to vote, ranking Arizona 23rd nationwide in the share of the Hispanic population that is eligible to vote. In contrast, 79% of the state’s white population is eligible to vote."

So, in fact I was broadly correct: 3/5 is 60 percent, and only 39 percent of Arizona Hispanics are eligible, the other 61 percent being either under 18 or non-citizens.

Even if all eligible Hispanics (Pew said 766,000) were registered, instead of the 400,000 plus that were actually registered at the time, this would still only be 18.2 percent of all eligible Arizona voters (4.2 million according to Pew).

Even using Phoenix New Times' more current figure of 850,000 eligible Hispanic voters, and assuming that non-Hispanic eligibles haven't grown, and keeping the 4.2 million total eligibles figure, that's only 20.2 percent of Arizona voters.

Looking over New Times' story, a bigger problem than voter registration may be low participation rates by already registered Hispanic voters.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz