Politics The Political Hook -- Your Free Speech Board

The Political Hook -- Your Free Speech Board


Fishing Reports
BFHP Articles
Fishing News
Fishing Tactics
Places to Fish
Boat Ramp Stories
Other Topics
Other Fishing Topics
Swap/Sell (no boats)
Props 4 Sale

Boats 4 Sale
Saltwater Fishing
Striped Bass
Lure Making
OBX Wildlife Photos
More Politics


SUBJECT: Supremes OK Status Checks - AZ Immigration law

Submitted by Harumph #11038 from OHIO on

High court rejects parts of AZ immigration law, upholds most controversial section

The Supreme Court struck down much of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration S.B. 1070 law on Monday, saying states have little authority to
set immigration rules against the wishes of the president or Congress.

The judges did allow state law enforcement officials some ability to quiz people about their legal status during traffic stops or arrests.

And right on the heels of this decision:

Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws,
and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland
Security Department may get from Arizona police.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police
could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.

That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of
those calls.


And once again, King Ovomitus doesn't like a law so he just aint going to enforce it.

By far the MOST CORRUPT administration in the history of this great nation.

Vote American 2012!

  1. Bender, MS Gulf Coast from MISSISSIPPI says Anyone ever went through a Police Checkpoint?
    What is different and is that not a violation of Rights? Officer, do you have probable cause to detain me?

  2. TimT ( from MASSACHUSETTS says Checkpoints
    How about the checkpoints for drunk drivers? I would think that all non-drinkers would raise holy hell for having their civil rights violated.Yep,it's an inconvenience but one I'm willing to make if it keeps the roads I'm driving on safer.

  3. PJzaBruin ( from CALIFORNIA says They can only be asked for documentation if there is PROBABLE CAUSE to stop them for something else
    Which means my Arizona nieces and nephews who have a Hispanic mother can NOT just be stopped on the street and forced to prove their citizenship because they "look Mexican."

    And the courts have upheld the drunk-driving checkpoints as a matter of safety for everyone on the road (never mind that driving is NOT a right).

    Rumpy, you need a new source. All this crap from Wing Nuts Daily and Conservativeliars News Serviced is so riddled with lies and half-truths that only a pure partisan sub-moron could believe it. You and hvagisil share subions to these, don't you?

  4. mac (Doyle McEwen) ( from CALIFORNIA says PJ, just how are the media sources you named
    any different than the partisan media sources you choose to utilize for you own edification..Every damned one of them is riddled with lies and half-truths, what makes your sources any better..Is it because they fill you with the lies and half-truths you choose to believe..


  5. GITTHENET from NORTH CAROLINA says The problem in AZ is
    not what AZ wishes to do or with the laws, either current or proposed, the problem is with what this administration refuses to do.

    A bigger problem is those who continue to support this administration regardless of what they do or don't do...

  6. PJzaBruin ( from CALIFORNIA says No Mac, it's because I use a wide spectrum of sources
    From Fox News and the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times, to the Huffington Post. If you would clean off your bifocals and READ what I post, you might see that, Mr. Buttinsky.

    For someone so good at picking nits, the things you choose to overlook are really annoying.

  7. Harumph #11038 from OHIO says Someone needs a hug

  8. mac (Doyle McEwen) ( from CALIFORNIA says Congratulations PJ
    On being so open on your sources..So you admit to reading those sources you consider rife with lies and half-truths, or are you admitting to reading those lies and half-truths that are closest to your pre-established views, ignoring all others..It is OK PJ, most people do exactly the same..


  9. PJzaBruin ( from CALIFORNIA says Neither, Mac
    I use some sources to help verify what I find in others.

    Stop trying to put words in my mouth. It just makes you look like an arse.

  10. mac (Doyle McEwen) ( from CALIFORNIA says Yes, it does, doesn't it..
    I guess I just have not mastered it as you have, or think you have..

    I guess that means no ice cream for me, for playing childish games..Maybe I will go get some frozen yogurt..


  11. TimT ( from MASSACHUSETTS says Verify
    So Fox News has a story that you need to verify some of the data,you go to Huffington Post and they say the data that Fox has is a lie.How is this verifying anything?


To post a followup to this subject use the following form:

(Sponsors/Supporters only)

Email Address:




Advertising/Sponsor Information

Register to post messages and reports


Subscribers don't receive these ads

Fishing Reports
BFHP Articles
Fishing News
Upcoming Events
Rally Page
BFHP Surveys
Fishing Tactics
Places to Fish
Other Topics
Product Evaluations

Boat Ramp Stories
Trailers & Towing
Boats For Sale
Tournament Tactics
Striped Bass

Fly Fishing
Saltwater Fishing
Non-Fishing 2
Political Hook
Tall Tales, Fiction & Legend
Complete Listing of Boards
Copyright © WMI, Inc. 1995-2017. All rights reserved.
This message board created and maintained by: WebMasters International, Inc. (WMI) address mail to wmi@wmi.org

WMI disclaimer
Privacy Statement