With today’s Big Brother loudspeaker announcement declaring ‘illegal is legal’, don’t be surprised if your peers drastically increase Victory Gin consumption to combat the madness of tyranny disguised as ‘diversity’ or ‘amnesty’.
It’s Official: No Proof Of Citizenship Required To Vote
(AP) The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.
The justices voted 7-2 to throw out Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law.
Federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” Justice Antonia Scalia wrote for the court’s majority.
The court was considering the legality of Arizona’s requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “motor voter” registration law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which doesn’t require such documentation, trumps Arizona’s Proposition 200 passed in 2004.
Arizona appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and lead counsel for the voters who challenged Proposition 200.
Illegal immigrants doing the job Americans won’t do – oh really?!: HERE
Republicans rush to help Obama destroy America: HERE
Benghazi – Eventually, all lies merge into Hillary
Hillary’s ridiculously stupid, over exaggerated self parodic arm gestures might have been red meat for the dull-witted liberals, but they did absolutely noting change the fact that she is the reason those people died.
During an interview that aired on Friday’s “Good Morning America,” pop diva Madonna made a comment usually heard from tea partiers and National Rifle Association members: “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”
Madonna appeared on the ABC News morning program promoting her concert event, “Madonna: The MDNA Tour,” which airs Saturday on the EPIX network. The first half of the concert relies heavily on the use of guns as props, which has drawn some criticism. When ABC News’ Elizabeth Vargas asked her if she’d considered changing or deleting that segment of the show, Madonna said absolutely not.
“That would be like asking people to not have guns in action movies,” she said. “I mean the thing is, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. That whole first section of the show is like an action movie, and I was playing a super vixen who wanted revenge.”
Vargas then reminded her of recent instances of gun violence.
“But I know there was several movies that delayed release because of the shootings, for example, at Sandy Hook Elementary school,” Vargas said.
“Well that’s not going to change the situation,” Madonna answered. “This all comes from fear and ignorance, and people not really raising their children, or not paying attention to what’s going on.”
Another loophole inserted into the new version of the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill allows Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (or any of her successors) to nix the construction of a required border security fence if she does not find it to be an “appropriate” use of resources.
The new version of the bill was introduced via a so-called “border surge” amendment from Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-ND), with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repackaging the whole bill into the amendment.
On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:
The Supreme Court has 11 cases, including the term’s highest profile matters, to resolve before the justices take off for summer vacations, teaching assignments and international travel.
The court is meeting Monday for its last scheduled session, but will add days until all the cases are disposed of.
A look at some of the cases:
—Gay Marriage: Actually two cases. One is a challenge to California’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The other is an attack on a provision of federal law that prevents legally married gay couples from receiving a range of tax, health and pension benefits.
—Affirmative action: A white woman denied admission to the University of Texas seeks to overturn the school’s consideration of race among many factors in filling the last quarter of its freshman classes. A broad ruling could end the use of race in college admissions nationwide.
—Voting rights: A suburb of Birmingham, Ala., wants the court to end the nearly 50-year-old requirement for some state and local governments, mainly in the South and with a history of discrimination in voting, to get the advance approval of any changes in the way they hold elections.
—Native American adoption: A wrenching dispute over who gets custody of Native American girl, her biological father or the adoptive couple who cared for her until she was 2. The case involves the interpretation of a 1978 law intended to prevent American Indian children from being taken from their homes and typically placed with non-Indian adoptive or foster parents.
—Generic Drugs: The industry is asking the Supreme Court to extend protections that makers of generic drugs have from state court lawsuits if federal officials have approved the design of the brand-name version the generic drug copied.
—Private property: A Florida property owner wants compensation, under the Constitution’s requirement that the government must pay if it takes your property, for a local government’s refusal to issue a development permit.
— Workplace discrimination: Two cases test different aspects of federal law barring discrimination on the basis of race. In one, the court has to decide what level of responsibility it takes to be considered a worker’s supervisor in a discrimination complaint. The other asks whether an employer’s action can be considered retaliation against an employee who complains of racial harassment if retaliation was a motivating factor, or must it be the only factor.
“…the Gang of 8 bill and the Corker amendment are supposed to provide public guarantees that the laws will be enforced as written, but in fact there is a loophole large enough to drive a political agenda through.
There is every reason to expect this discretion to be abused to widen amnesty.
We have seen how the Obama administration unlawfully refused to enforce the immigration laws as to removal proceedings, as a federal judge found.
Now they want you to trust that they will not waive enforcement of other provisions in the name of what they deem to be the public interest.
The rush to a vote in the Senate does not allow time to fully understand all the provisions. And that’s why the rush is taking place.” –William A. Jacobson