Court Stops Arizona Law\ California Vindicated (Fremont: rent, horse, rating)

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by californio sur

What? Did you honestly believe that the Arizona law would hold up? I know you are a former California state employee who worked with the legislature\ governors. You must have insight. All the large cities [plus many smaller ones] in California condemned\ boycotted Arizona. The state legislature condemned Arizona. Governor Schwarzenegger condemned Arizona. The Republican candidate for governor, Whitman, condemned Arizona. The governors of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas condemned Arizona. Now whose country do you live in?

I was going to try to refrain from bothering to answer any of your threads, but this one I can't ignore: When are you going to accept, a city boycotting and the residence of that city boycotting are totally different things. Just because the city cousel takes action doesn't mean the people support it. I think we are seeing that with some of what has happened in DC in the past 6 months.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Offered to divert her? To what, a degree in something like geology or linguistics, where her insistence on discriminating against homosexuals wouldn't run afoul of the curriculum?

If Julea Ward wanted a degree is some other program, she could have applied for admission to such a program. If there is evidence that she applied to some such program, and was denied "because of her religious beliefs", then bring it on. If such is the case, it is not only wrong but should be illegal. But there is no evidence that such is the case. Julea Ward did not sue to be allowed to study something, anything, at Eastern Michigan University - rather, she filed suit contending that the university should have allowed her to reject counseling cases involving homosexual issues in order to get her Masters Degree in Counseling.

She refused, and was expelled from the program. Rightly so.

I am not totally familiar with the case so am judging my comments on just what I am reading here: I know what you are saying, but I disagree. I think there could have been others she could have counseled to fulfill her requirements and believe me, I am not anti gay. I do believe she had a right to refuse. During the world wars, there were many conscientious objectors for religious reasons. They were allowed to not fight but to serve the country in other ways. Why couldn't the masters program heads do something similar for her?

Nita

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Offered to divert her? To what, a degree in something like geology or linguistics, where her insistence on discriminating against homosexuals wouldn't run afoul of the curriculum?

If Julea Ward wanted a degree is some other program, she could have applied for admission to such a program. If there is evidence that she applied to some such program, and was denied "because of her religious beliefs", then bring it on. If such is the case, it is not only wrong but should be illegal. But there is no evidence that such is the case. Julea Ward did not sue to be allowed to study something, anything, at Eastern Michigan University - rather, she filed suit contending that the university should have allowed her to reject counseling cases involving homosexual issues in order to get her Masters Degree in Counseling.

She refused, and was expelled from the program. Rightly so.

Back in a former life I periodically recused myself from issues and cases where I felt there was a conflict of interest between my beliefs and the matters at hand. That included some counseling assignments. It never harmed my professional standing.

Perhaps Ms. Ward would do the same. We'll never know!

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by nmnita

wow, we have a new moderator, his name is Calsur and he is telling posters to stay on topic. Actually he is on topic, he is referring to federal court decisions.
Nita

Are you crying?

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Talk about a "yahoo state." You just described what's south of the border perfectly.

As for the marijuana issue, I think there may be a slight difference. The bulk of the country seems to approve of Arizona's attempt. I'm not convinced most of the country approves legalization of MJ. But I suppose I could be wrong. If it did pass and became country-wide the drug cartels woiuld just have to amp-up their production of heroin, crack and cocaine.

What a world we live in!

You know as well as me that law is never decided by polls. The issue of California taxing a substance that the federal government deems illegal is the issue as I understand it. The courts have strongly supported the federal authority on inter-state commerce issues. In the case of Arizona, the court rightly decided that Arizona can not take on federal authority and use local police to enforce a law that is contrary to federal law. That's why it was struck down.

[Curmudgeon]

It wasn't struck down. Some aspects of it were put on hold. It was modeled after federal statute. If local law enforcement cannot take on federal authority then local cops should no longer respond to bank robberies, child abductions where a state line may have been crossed or stop inter-state haulers, turn over AWOL servicemen based upon federal warrants or take any interest in the FBIs most wanted lists.

Right!

[AwayAndBackToSac]

This issue needs to go up to the 9th court, where it will likely be struck down, and then appealed to the Supreme Court.

After all, it is a State's Rights issue.


Again I assert, this is a simple question:
If the Federal Government will not perform it's duties, should/can the State Government perform those same duties?

I am unfamiliar of a similar issue being brought before the court, but I strongly believe that if the Federal Government can not prove it is adequately protecting the quality of life in boarder states, through border enforcement, Arizona likely will win (at least with the present make up of the Supreme Court).

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by AwayAndBackToSac

This issue needs to go up to the 9th court, where it will likely be struck down, and then appealed to the Supreme Court.

After all, it is a State's Rights issue.


Again I assert, this is a simple question:
If the Federal Government will not perform it's duties, should/can the State Government perform those same duties?

I am unfamiliar of a similar issue being brought before the court, but I strongly believe that if the Federal Government can not prove it is adequately protecting the quality of life in boarder states, through border enforcement, Arizona likely will win (at least with the present make up of the Supreme Court).

Don't count on it. According to various discussions on TV, the Supreme court, including the chief justice, mostly rule in favor of federal authority. We know the 9th circuit is very liberal for the most part but this issue is not really a conservative vs liberal battle since both Republicans and Democrats have varying opinions on immigration. I wouldn't hold my breath that the Arizona law will be upheld.

[Leaving123]

Just a portion was stopped by the Obama Feds,I will be so glad when he is done ruining this country.The main reason for Obama wanting this stopped is maybe the next illeagal President may come in from that border,just hope the next one can produce a birth certificate!

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by Leaving123

Just a portion was stopped by the Obama Feds,I will be so glad when he is done ruining this country.The main reason for Obama wanting this stopped is maybe the next illeagal President may come in from that border,just hope the next one can produce a birth certificate!

Did you forget that the previous president had the same policy toward immigration? duh!